Blog Post 7

1] http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1953geyer.html

The link above leads to a manuscript of a speech given by A. L. Geyer, an advocate for apartheid in South Africa. In this speech, multiple concerns about South Africa are stated, which include how South Africa has an overwhelmingly large colored population compared to their population of white people ("the only independent country in which white people are outnumbered by black people with a ratio of 1 to 4"), and also how the white population has nowhere to retreat in order to escape the black population. He also then goes on to discuss how there are two solutions on how to move forward: Apartheid or Partnership. Partnership would require the " Cooperation of the individual citizens within a single community, irrespective of race.... (It) demands that there shall be no discrimination whatsoever in trade and industry, in the professions and the Public Service. Therefore, whether a man is black or a white African, must according to this policy be as irrelevant as whether in London a man is a Scotsman or an Englishman." He then goes on to conclude that partnership could eventually lead to the disappearance of the white South African Nation, therefore Apartheid is the ONLY solution. This would be using the "unbearable exigence" from the textbook, by saying how if Apartheid does not happen the results will be catastrophic, while also portraying black people as an evil force. The following quote further exemplifies the unbearable exigence that is ridding South Africa of its colored population: "And will you be greatly surprised if I tell you that this white nation is not prepared to commit national suicide, not even by slow poisoning?" When discussing Apartheid he says that "The only alternative is a policy of apartheid, the policy of separate development. The germ of this policy is inherent in almost all of our history, implanted there by the force of circumstances.... Apartheid is a policy of self preservation. We make no apology for possessing that very natural urge. But it is more than that. It is an attempt at self ­preservation in a manner that will enable the Bantu to develop fully as a separate people." This is claiming that Apartheid, by violent or any other means, is going to save the white race, and is an attempt at self preservation. By saying "self preservation" they are making it seem more positive and almost like an act of self defense. 

2] My act of violence is the bombings at the Boston Marathon in 2013. According to the four kinds of violence stated in the text book, I would consider this an act of terrorism that seeks to "inspire fear and to bring pressure on the target audience to bring about resistance or change" through "repeated unpredictable violence." I honestly don't know how one could frame this act of violence as morally right..

3] Is violence ever the answer? No, but yes at the same time. I don't personally believe that you should go about getting what you want by violent means, but then I see people like the Tibetans who, for 50 plus years have been undergoing Chinese oppression, are only using non-violent tactics and seeing no results. Although I do not think that violence is the answer, sometimes, in the case of the Tibetans, even a small act of violence may be needed in order to see real results, and stop whatever oppression or exigence they are "fighting".

Blog 7

http://www.brontaylor.com/courses/pdf/Regan--JustifyViolence.pdf 1.) While surfing the web for examples I came across an excerpt from a book by an Animal Activist outlining the justification in the use of violence in the movement. He eventually concludes that he doesn't believe violence is justified but he outlines the 5 premises most of the movement believes: 1.Animals are innocent 2.Violence is used only when necessary to rescue them so that they are spared terrible harms 3. Excessive violence is never used 4. Violence is used only after nonviolent alternatives have been exhausted, as time and circumstances permit. 5. Therefore, in these cases, the use of violence is justified. He explains that some violence used by ARA's is unnecessary like destroying empty testing places, saying even though no one is in here, that it is just destruction. ARA's are depicted as violent terrorist types by the media but he thinks they are just covering for the awful things that happen to the animals like being shocked, exposed to radiation, and used in experimental surgeries. He says the violence of the activist doesn't even scratch the realm of the violence that they use.He uses Ghandi's pacifism as a guide to his view but explains they waiting for non-violence will sacrifice the lives of the animals. He is using the philosophical grounds of Ghandi as described in chapter 12. The use of explained the "laws" regarding violence are similar to the transcendent claims explained in the book, they are a variety of good reasons to advocate violence. The book gives an example from a animal rights movement saying "a value of a innocent animal life is above a person who mistreats." These laws made by the persuaders are their way of contrasting lesser evils with greater but are not actually logically correct, It is all violence. 2.) If you take the animal rights activist movement during the past 20 years extreme animal rights have committed hundreds of arsons, bombings and acts of vandalism and harassment, causing more than $100 million in damage.In chapter 13, 4 types of violence are explained, this violence would be direct. They are causing this damage to stop the mistreatment of animals as the mistreats are the "enemy." It strongly backs up the second objective explained in the chapter about destroying the physical resources and institutions that weaken the enemy and cause them to lose power. It can be framed as terrorism because the acts are considered unexpected and are repeated. The message could be seen as a "threat" if they don't sop abusing, more damage to be come. Or the acts can be framed in a positive light, they are trying to help "cute puppies" picture the adorable faces, how can violence for protecting them be wrong? It is not difficult to frame that to even the most meanest of audiences. 3.) I don't think violence is ever answer because it decreases the legitimacy of the movement in the fact that it makes them look slightly wild and unpredictable. also it is not appealing to pacifist which usually make up the majority of the movement. http://archive.adl.org/learn/ext_us/ecoterrorism.html

Blog Post 7

"The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew"- Adolf Hitler

 Hilter, in my opinion, is the most influential social movement leader in history. Through his powerful words, ideas, and craziness, he was able to change the world forever. Although he approached his issues through many different ways, in the quote above, Hitler uses fear and addressing the situational demand as an evil force. He basically says the jews are the devil in human form and that justifies the reason for their mass murders. By addressing them as the devil and the most evil there could be, his followers were even more convinced as to why they should help eliminate the jewish population as a whole.

 

Violence occurs in countless number of ways. In the case of being in an abusive relationship, the violence can be many different types, The two main are direct abuse and coercive. Obviously, if the victim in the relationship gets hit, beaten, ect. that is direct. It is physical, in your face, and damaging. It can also be coercive in the fact that the abuser most likely threatens the victim in many ways. I don't think this act can be justified as morally ok, but in the eyes of the abuser, it may seem that the victim gets what she/he deserves.

 
I don't think violence should be the initial answer to an issue. I think it varies on situation, but I think there are steps that can be taken before jumping to violence. I do, however, think that sometimes it is needed once as that can be done, is done and there is no change in the matter.

blog post 7

1. Many acts of violence are acts that came unintentional. Sometimes the desperation of a group in a social movement leads to certain persons committing violent acts in order to gain the attention of their government. This is the case of the Umkhonto we Sizwe which Nelson Mandela co-founded. “I do not, however, deny that I planned sabotage. I did not plan it in a spirit of recklessness, nor because I have any love of violence. I planned it as a result of a calm and sober assessment of the political situation that had arisen after many years of tyranny, exploitation, and oppression of my people by the Whites.”, were the words spoken by Nelson Mandela during his trial. The people pertaining to this group engaged in violent acts and sabotage against the South African government because they felt as if this was a last resort. Having their peaceful protests often met with direct violence from the government itself, retaliation was their only option. They felt that their cause was justifiable because they were defending the black Africans of their country and trying to end decades and decades of oppression.

2. The lynchings performed by the Ku Klux Klan were an act of violence that can most certainly be classified as an act of terrorism. Continuos murders and threats against African-Americans that persisted for decades supports the statement that this is a terrorist organization. The Ku Klux Klan beliefs are reflected in Richard Leeman’s first theme of “bipolar exhortation” in which the group perceived the equality of blacks and whites as an inhumane system. A system where white people were supreme was believed by them to be the correct way in which their society should operate. Any other way of living was evil or wrong and anyone who supported the wrong way also deserved to be killed.  Ideals like these led to the death of George W. Ashburn, a white man whom supported the black community. To this group lynching and terrorizing black people was considered morally right. From the other perspective the violent acts of the KKK were viewed as corrupt and barbaric. People of every culture should be considered equals and never terrorized or made to feel threatened. 

3. I think that violence is sometimes the only answer. Since the beginning of time, people have always used violence to solve their issues. Till the day where everyone agrees to resolve all their problems peacefully then in certain situations violence may be the only option. 

Blog #7

"Demoralize the enemy from within by surprise, terror, sabotage, assassination. This is the war of the future."
"The very first essential for success is a perpetually constant and regular employment of violence."
"It is not truth that matters, but victory."
---Adolf Hitler

In the following quotes, Adolf Hitler justifies the violence of the Nazis throughout the course of the Holocaust. Hitler states that using violence is essential in order to gain any success, and that overall being violent leads to victory. Hitler believes that using violence is okay because it just leads to success, no matter what harm is done to civilians or the people. The quotes above can represent justifiable homicide as presented in chapter 12. Adolf Hitler is advocating homicide of jews as a manorism that is acceptable and okay because it proves a point and claims "victory."

In chapter 13, four kinds of violence are described that exist in society instilling fear in society. The most common type of violence that affects many people on a daily basis is terrorism. When most hear the word terrorism, they think of 911. The terrorist acts of 911 and the collapse of the twin towers occurred due to terrorists part of the al-Queda group. The acts of 911 can clearly be justified as acts of terrorism because it was a threat of violence, an actual act of violence and the violence was completely directly specifically on another party or group. 911 could be framed as morally right to the members of the al-Queda, not the members of the United States. The members of the al-Queda deem this act as morally right because they pursued the actions, where as U.S citizens were victims of the acts. 

In conclusion, is violence ever the answer? In my opinion, violence is not ever the answer. There are ways to prove a point in society and create a plausible movement without injuring society and or causing destruction. Furthermore, when violent acts are taken, people tend to always question why they were so harmful and never understand why that group or person could have accomplished their goal in a more moral and sane way.

Blog Post 7

I think there are plenty of good people in America, but there are also plenty of bad people in America and the bad ones are the ones who seem to have all the power and be in these positions to block things that you and I need. Because this is the situation, you and I have to preserve the right to do what is necessary to bring an end to that situation, and it doesn’t mean that I advocate violence, but at the same time I am not against using violence in self-defense. I don’t even call it violence when it’s self-defense, I call it intelligence.
- Malcolm X

In this statement by Malcolm X isn’t advocating violence but rather attempting to justify the reasons and circumstances that it could be used in to make it ok. “I am not against using violence in self-defense” this is a perfect example of him trying to justify violence as self-defense and making it seem ok to use violence in that case. He goes on to say that “I don’t even call it violence when it’s self defense, I call it intelligence” this quote even further strengths his justification of violence under the circumstances of self defense making it sound stupid not to defend yourself when you are being attacked.  Self-defense is often used under extreme situations and Malcolm X is trying to justify violence in that situation and saying that it is more than ok to use it under the circumstances of self-defense.

The Boston Marathon bombings are an example of direct violence as the attack killed innocent citizens. The people killed by the bombings weren’t necessarily the enemies of the attackers but just a symbol.  The death of the innocent was supposed to affect the entire the nation and the government of the United States not just the ones who perished. The Tsarnaev brothers were trying to defend Islam from the United States as one their motives. This attack is viewed, as terrorism because the large number of innocent people who were killed in a random acts that was not a part of war. This attack can’t be justified morally but to the attackers they justified it them to themselves through their extremist religious beliefs.

I don’t think violence should be the answer to resolve problems in most situations. I feel this way because once a group starts using violence as one of their tactics they lose some of the followers they may have gained. When groups start using violence they are portrayed as the bad guys which goes against their motives of achieving their goals. Violence should only be used in extreme situations where it is necessary for self-defense and your life depends on it. Violence only makes the situation worse and sometimes you lose the leverage you may have gained through some of your other tactics.

Blog Post 7.

1. An example of justifying violence would be the ten point plan created by Huey Newton and Bobby Seale. The plan can be found at http://www.blackpanther.org/TenPoint.htm. The plan displays the classic ideograph subtopic found in chapter 12. Classic ideograph means that the ten point plan exceptionally shows how the Black Panthers are advocating for violence in order to achieve a widely shared social value. In the plan it talks about all the things the group wants. For example it states, “WE WANT FULL EMPLOYMENT FOR OUR PEOPLE.” The quote helps to justify for the group’s use of violence. Another example which helps to justify for the Black Panthers use of violence is in the plan where it states, “WE WANT FREEDOM. WE WANT POWER TO DETERMINE THE DESTINY OF OUR BLACK AND OPPRESSED COMMUNITIES.”

2. Chapter 13 introduces to us the realm of taking violent action. An example of violence would be the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. This act of violence would fit into the direct violence category. Direct violence as defined by Stewart, Denton, and Smith is an act that aims to “eliminate the opposition physically. This includes the assassination of leaders and the kidnapping of officials.” Through the authors definition the assassination of John F. Kennedy fits perfectly into this kind of violence. This act of violence could be framed as terrorism due to the fact that it aroused terror, fear, and anxiety. It also could be framed as terrorism due to the fact that the act was difficult for the guardians of John F. Kennedy to understand. Another possibly way this could be viewed as terrorism is the fact that it was aimed at instrumental audiences and that the people who were involved are very influential. There are several conspiracy theories on the reason why John F. Kennedy was assassinated and these help justify it to be morally right. One in particular is that the CIA assassinated JFK as a result of anger over the way he handled the Bay of Pigs.

3. I think violence can be the answer at times, but I definitely think you need a good reason to back up why you are fighting.

Blog Post 7, Violence and Terror - Due April 1st, 2014

This blog post is composed of three parts.

1) Find an example of a pubilc speaker attempting to justify violence to an audience and share it with us on the blog. What argumentative strategies from chapter 12 are being employed to win over their audience? Support your claims with quotations from your example. NOTE: This should be a public figure that is NOT a government official, meaning I DON'T want you to post a video of George W. Bush justifying the invasion of Iraq. Try to find something from within a social movement.

2) Chapter 13 moves us beyond argument for violence and into the realm of taking violent action; in addition, the chapter provides insights into the rhetorical consequences of terrorism based on the act of framing. Your task: choose an act of violence and categorize it according to the four types of violence at the beginning of the chapter. Then, how might this particular act of violence be framed on both sides of the issue? How could we frame it to be terrorism, how could we frame it to be morally right?

3) This last one is broad and based on your opinion: Is violence ever the answer? If you feel your answer might have you put on an NSA list, you can simply say "yes" or "no." We'll spend some time talking about this tomorrow.

blog post 6

The film “Loose Change” depicts the events of September 11th, 2001 to be a conspiracy that the government tried cover up. Various tactics including sowing distrust, challenging plausibility, and telling a better story that were all found in Chapter 11, were used in the film in order to prove to the audience that those events were in fact a hoax. Examples of sowing distrust include pointing out faults that various national security organizations possibly had during that time like withholding footage. They further instilled distrust by continuously using words like “mysteriously” and kept on questioning why the government would cover up so many details from that day. The film made it seem as if the government was untrustworthy. Speedy cleanups were also ordered for what the film portrayed as concealment of the truth. Challenging plausibility also came into play throughout the film. They made what the government said sound ridiculous. Situations such as recordings from the people on the flights were said to be impossible due to the height at which the plane was flying at. Additionally, according to the film the way in which the buildings collapsed were impossible too. The film even shows images where explosions further down from the crash site occurred promoting the final collapse.  The film “told a better story” by explaining a theory of why the government would be behind a conspiracy like this.  This includes a theory that is very detailed and leaves no angle unanalyzed. This provides a coherent pattern that seems more plausible then the story the government tells. Evidence constantly thrown at the audience for over a period of an hour begins to show overwhelming proof that the claim of conspiracy is in fact the truth. In conclusion I do think that the film “Loose Change” was successful in convincing it’s audience. 

Blog Post 6

In our book, chapter eleven talks about conspiracy theories and what makes them effective. The first is to instill distrust into the viewer/audience. Loose Change tries to do this through the whole film. They use security camera footage, pictures, eyewitness accounts, political statements, etc., to try to make the viewer believe different things about what happened during 9/11. The second is to challenge plausibility. This is also done in Loose Change. In the movie, there is a large portion about the plane that crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11. They talked about how hot jet fuel is, and tried to disband the logic behind where the plane would have "vaporized". Also, the movie analyzes the size of the hole damaged into the Pentagon and tries to disband the knowledge of the certain plane being able to make a hole that size. Also, through the film, several scenarios were documented and then after they would comment on how strange the thing is. That provokes curiosity in the viewer, who may have just taken the information at face value prior to a comment like that. Lastly, the book talks about how conspiracy tactics are made for telling a better story. I think Loose Chance was very thought provoking and that it was intriguing, but I don't know if telling an audience "your government is behind all of 9/11 and is trying to instill fear in all of you" is something that isn't done for the sake of a better story. It may be a better story in a fictional distopian world, but I would doubt anyone would be for a distopian society in the real world where the government is behind the death of thousands of people to instill fear into the country's heart. 

Blog Post #6

Chapter 11 outlines the three components of  arguments from conspiracy to be sowing distrust, challenging plausibility, and telling a better story. The film Loose Change effectively made an argument using these three components. The film definitely started out sowing distrust by showcasing a number of inconsistencies with 9/11. The textbook says "conspiracy advocates appeal to the centuries-old fear in the United States that real threats to our republic and way of life will come from within."(288) Terrorists overseas can be killed, yet distrust in your own government is hard to deal with and this film effectively brought up that suspicion. The film challenged plausibility by using a number of testimonials that stated different views than official press. Citing phone calls and interviewing people that were on site effectively challenged the plausibility of the attack by showing the audience a side they probably have not seen before. The only part I believe the film did not effectively do is telling a better story. I found myself thinking, why? There were a lot of possible explanations and stories thrown in the film but I felt as if their lack of direction prevented me from hearing the better story.The textbook says that having an effective conspiracy theory "requires not only proving one case but disproving another" (297) But I did not feel as if they spent enough time proving a case, instead only tried to get me to disprove the current one. 

Blog Post #6

Chapter 11: " Selling Conspiracy Theories to Skeptical Audiences" breaks down how to make a conspiracy theory believable to the common audience in 3 main points - sowing distrust, challenging plausibility, and telling a better story. Loose Change was a documentary on the attacks at the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001 and it was centered around their radical argument that it was a government setup. In my opinion, the filmmakers do a satisfactory job at hitting these points throughout the film.

They do an excellent job at sowing distrust in the audience. While watching the film, they presented all the important events leading up to 9/11, as well as events occurring afterwards. Not only did they do that, but they contrasted what the government said about each and every event with facts they found in their research, essentially discrediting what the government said and proving that they either lied, twisted the truth, or hid important details of the events, which is loosely said under the subsection "The Principle of Reversal", which states that everything is the opposite of what it appears to be. This aroused me, and actually at a certain point truly made me question my personal views on the event - which is and should be the goal of anyone trying to sell a conspiracy theory.

The filmmakers also challenge the plausibility of the events. The government labelled 9/11 as a terrorist attack, but they challenge it with their argument stating that there was an in-group, with the allusion that they believe its the government, that planned this event down to a tee. The attack the simplicity of the explanations, for example, such as how could a small explosion completely destroy an immensely strong building at free fall speed. This makes an audience second guess what authorities say. They also attack how opposers of the conspiracy theory write off all other explanations such as confiscating the tapes from the hotels that recorded the pentagon's attacks and never releasing them to the public.

Lastly, they overall tell a better story. To be frank, they present numerous facts and theories that truly, in essence, make more sense than the official stories given from government officials. Their facts tie together all loose ends, and make something so ambiguous make total sense. They motivate a viewer to dig deeper into the argument, and lean toward their side more than the opposing side of the argument.

In conclusion, I believe Loose Change sells their conspiracy theory effectively, proving themselves through the research they present as well as the presentation of the theory as a whole.

Blog Post...VI

 After watching the film “Loose Change” and reading and understanding chapter 11 of the book, I can say that the film very much so presents an effective argument. In chapter 11, the main objective is to showcase how the makings of conspiracy theories are ultimately used to mostly “sell” skeptics on a movement.  According to the book, this is done in three ways; sowing distrust, challenging plausibility and telling a better story. In the first step, sowing distrust, the conspiracy theory is based solely on a theorists ability to cast doubt or suspicion about a commonly/generally agreed upon account. It can be as easy as just casting suspicion that goes against the overall agreement. Then capitalizing on that distrust occurs.  After sowing distrust, next is challenging plausibility which can be done through poking holes in an occurrence’s story, reports or even the storytellers. Once this distrust is rooted, this makes it easier for audiences to not be soo quick to believe said storyteller. The final component is “Telling A Better Story” which basically explains the importance and significance of all the info that you heard and why it was given to you. Basically, all of the information and “evidence” presented by the theorists is then woven into a “better” more accurate and “true” story while also proving that something was indeed covered up and why.

I believe the film Loose Change was effectively presented to the audience. Based on the book, the film sows distrust as well as challenges the plausibility by going over EVERY single occurrence on the day of September 11^th and compares what government publications said happened, to actual proof and reports and easy to find information. This seems most effective when the narrator is on the subject of the plane that crashed through the pentagon. He provides a lot of evidence that argues against what reports and government officials provided. This refutes the highly publicized story of how the plane collided into the pentagon. He is essentially demanding the audience to question why the government withheld information about that day and pretty much forged or straight up lied about. All of the evidence the narrator provided went against everything governmental publications and private companies were telling.  In the end, the film tries to give an explanation for why the government would   keep vital information from us. The narrator proposes a reason for this conspiracy theory “…to make billions upon trillions of dollars”. However, the narrator also lets the audience come up with their own answer to the questions he proposed in the film. 

Blog Post Number Sixxx

    In order to sell a conspiracy theory to the skeptical public three things must be done. The first component is to sow distrust. This is bringing about serious doubt to the general public about the "official" or generally accepted explanation of a occurrence. Many conspiracy theories not only sow distrust to the story but to the storytellers as well, whether is be a government or institution.The second component is to challenge plausibility. This is poking holes in the believability of official reports, which is easier once the storytellers are not trusted anymore. Conspiracy theorists will choose particular words like "accident" or "coincidence" and make it seem like these words were used to hide the truth or give the public an extremely basic explanation to something that is a lot more complex. The last component is to tell a better story. After the storyteller's version of an occurrence is discredited, it is up to the conspiracy theorists to come up with a better story or the "true" story. They do this by illustrating a coherent pattern that ties together numerous bits of information into a story. Another way to tell a better story is to provide overwhelming proof that the public cannot simply ignore. While telling this story the conspiracy argument must include a motive as to why the story was covered up and why the phenomenon occurred. 

    In relation to Loose Change, the argument presented in the film was effectively presented to the audience. Capitalizing on the preexisting government distrust, this film effectively created serious doubt around the story given to the public that 9/11 was due to a terrorist group without any aid or knowledge from the government. The film shed light on the many conflicting stories from government officials immediately following the events, making it a little suspicious once they all later issued statements saying that it was clearly a terrorist attack. This brought the story and the government into question. The film focused heavily on challenging the plausibility of the events that occurred on 9/11, with failure to consider alternative explanations and evidence being particularly highlighted. When discussing flight 93 the film provided a number of different explanations as to where the plane went. They said that the plane may have landed in Pennsylvania according to the flight log. They also said that the plane may have been shot down by the government according to eye witness testimony. When discussing the plane crashing into the Pentagon the film provided video evidence and eye witness accounts that went against the story of a plane colliding into the building. The evidence supported the film's claim that a missile was shot into the Pentagon instead of a commercial airliner. After sowing distrust and challenging plausibility the film tells the better story of an elaborate government plan to stage a terrorist attack to benefit financially and legislatively. Overwhelming proof like the rise in put options days before the event or the countless stories and videos of explosions at the World Trade Center help to prove this story. 

Blog #6

The three components of selling conspiracy theories for audiences are sowing distrust, challenging plausibility, and telling an overall better story. Sowing distrust as defined by the textbook means that the author is trying to instill a sense of doubt or "distrust" in the mind of the viewer and or observer. This concept is typically used to create a conspiracy of this doubt created throughout society.The second tool of selling conspiracy theories is challenging plausibility. This can be more easily achieved when the audience loses trust, and beings to challenge the legitimateness of the story and or event. Lastly, the final tool is telling a better story. In order to tell a better story, the teller must seem and or act extremely legit and valid in facts when relaying the message or story. It must do this by making all the facts presented to be cohesive and make sense in order for it to be believable.

One example of the first tool, sowing distrust, from "Loose Change" is the way the film presents the governments involvement in these acts. When watching the film, the way the story was presented made me question how to government was actually involved in the events because it was confusing to understand, which ultimately led to an instillment of doubt in my mind as the film progressed.

An example of the second tool, challenging plausibility, in the film was when it stated that before 911, bombs were strategically places throughout the entire World Trade Center. When the film "Loose Change" stated this idea, I lost a lot of trust. Trust was lost because for years since 911 I was told it was from a terrorist attack and planes crashing into the World Trade Center, but being told it was staged made me lost trust in my initial beliefs.

Lastly, and example of telling a better story from the short film can be identified when it said that the owner of the World Trade center signed a document in regard to terrorism and attacks just days before 911, which bettered the overall story because this is a fact that the news and media lacked to informed viewers post 911.

Blog Post 6

          Throughout Chapter 11 three components of selling conspiracy theories for audiences are discussed. These include sowing distrust, challenging plausibility, and finally telling a better story. Throughout the movie Loose Change the narrator does a great job of giving visual and sound identifications when proving that the attacks on 9/11 were in fact not terrorist at all, and rather Americas own government. He does this with many examples. One example includes the alleged plane which crashed into the pentagon. By giving us this example he shows us that there were no remains of the plane found which should have been present. He also shows a huge hole in the back end of the pentagon. This hole was not caused by the nose of the plane but in truth an explosion to the rear of the building. Along with the fake plane crash he shows us the falling of the twin towers. Here flashes of explosions going off throughout the twin towers are zoomed in on. Along with these images confirmation of the explosions can be heard from firefighters voice controls that prove the towers were not only brought down by the crashing of the planes, but also explosions. The government with all their power and wealth are able to control the public’s perception of things, especially in times of need. During these attacks when the press released that it was a terrorist attack nobody doubted otherwise. Now that all these lies have come to surface the government is very hesitant in speaking about the “attacks.”

        

          With conspiracy theorists it is important for them to persuade audiences. If they have overwhelming evidence and support from important people or those involved, well then it makes the conspiracy more believable. The narrator does a great job of continuing to give obvious evidence including people of high importance agreeing that this attack was not in fact a terrorist one. Although it is known conspiracy theorists have been known to not consider alternative actions. The narrator of Loose Change does a very detailed overview of all the possibilities ruling out certain dilemmas. Lastly, a conspiracy theorist must be able to tell a good story. This may include having a coherent pattern, overwhelming proof, motivation, or evilness. In this movie I feel that motivation is expressed throughout the start and end of the movie when the narrator tells the reader that the government planned these attacks years ago. He also shows evidence of a video allegedly made by Binladin in confessing to the attacks. This could be proof that the American government just wanted a reason to capture Binladin and let the American people think it was acceptable. This can also be seen as being evil.

          Overall, the narrator gives the viewer a great sense of what really went on. From this movie he leaves it up to you to decide what you do with the evidence. Do you believe him? Do you tell other people and demand answers from the government? Or do you just accept it and move on? That is all up to you the reader. After watching this movie my eyes have been opened. I question why the American government would plan an attack on its own people?

Blog 6

Chapter 11 outlines three different components of conspiracy arguments which are: sowing distrust, challenging plausibility, and telling a better story.
Sowing distrust requires one to create serious doubt in the minds of their audience regarding the explanation for a specific event. Many have doubts in our government, and conspiracy theorists capitalize on those doubts and greatly increase them. Throughout Loose Change, information is displayed in a way that causes you to question the governments true role in the catastrophic events of September 11th. The film brings to light the roles the FBI, CIA, and NSA played in the events.
Challenging plausibility of an event is much easier once trust in officials is lessened. A conspiracy advocate may try to disprove terms agencies and officials used like "accident" or "coincidence" seem impossible or ridiculous. The documentary discusses how multiple explosions were heard in the events and the possibility of bombs being strategically placed throughout the World Trade Center. Weeks previous, bomb sniffing dogs were pulled from the premises. This example, among others, challenges the evidence provided to us by officials.
The final component is telling a better story. A conspiracy must appear more plausible and based on better evidence. It must tie together bits and pieces of information and form it into a pattern or valid explanation for the event. In a very accurate quote from Persuasion and Social Movements, "Conspiracy argument, then,  is an exercise in connecting the dots to lead an audience to a more reasonable explanation and, in doing so, to undermine an institutional explanation by offering a more plausible one."Alternative explanations are provided as to what happened during the morning hours of September 11th, with the government playing a key role in all of those explanations.

Blog Post 6

Chapter 11 of Persuasion and Social Movements focuses on the idea of conspiracy theories being divided into three equal components. The three components of sowing trust, challenging plausibility, and telling a better story are all done in the documentary, Loose Change. From watching and analyzing Loose Change, it is shown that the claims of conspiracy in chapter 11 are effectively done.

The documentary easily gets the audience to sow trust in the government, which means to cause the audience to doubt what they have been previously told. By releasing videos and information that was never seen to revealing their were some people and stories that were never allowed to be released, the documentary causes audience to step back and rethink the information that was fed to them through the government and media.

In the component of challenging plausibility, the video has many different arguments that question how certain stories and theories were possible. Through their cases, such as the pentagon being hit in the spot of the building that was previously marked, seen through satellites, or the way that it was not possible for the buildings to completely collapse the way they did, it cause the audience to look at the situation in a more logical manor and realize that these things couldn’t have happened the way the media and government said they did.

Also, the movie tells a much better, detailed story. There are no gaps missing likes ones in the stories given by the government and media. They connect everything, like for example; the owner of the World Trade Center happened to sign insurance policy just days before the attack that specifically focused on terrorism.  I think the film does a great job in defending its theories and really causes the audience to step back and think about the situation. 

Blog Post #6

The film Loose Change does a good job convincing people to believe in the 9/11 conspiracy theory. The film makes people question the 9/11 attacks and the validity of what they believe. The film shows how it is scientifically impossible for the plane that crashed into the Pentagon to be completely vaporized and have no remains left of it.  Not only does it mention the science but it also shows examples of a similar plane crash in Greece where the plane was not completely vaporized and the engines and others parts could still be noticed visibly. By doing this the film is instilling distrust into the viewers making them question what they believe this is an example of sowing distrust. After watching that there is no way that you cannot question what you believe because the film gives such strong evidence to create the distrust in the audience. An example of identification with mistrusted agencies in the film is when the film shows quotes from several different people in different departments and their answers on whether they saw 9/11 coming all differed.  Also it talks about how several politicians were told not to fly the day on 9/11, which makes people question the government agencies and distrust them more. An example of an implausible label from the film would be how the destruction of Building 7 is viewed as a coincidence and how it fell due to fires that occurred. The film tries to make it sound outrageous to refer to Building 7 as a coincidence by talking about how the building falls very similarly to a planned building demolition. Also how there has never been a building in history that has collapsed due to fires. By showing these examples the film makes referring to the destruction of Building 7 as coincidence sound outrageous. The film also tries to tell a better story with the overwhelming proof they present in the film. The amount proof that is present in the film is enough to at least make people question the 9/11 attacks. The film talks about the science behind the collapse of the building and how that proves that the building could not have fallen without the help of explosives. Also the film uses the first hand witness to back up their claims by talking about people who claimed to have seen explosions. These are some of the strategies used by the film to convince people about the 9/11 conspiracy theory.  

Blog Post 6

Chapter 11 focuses on selling conspiracy theories to skeptical audiences. The three tactics described in doing this include sowing distrust, challenging plausibility, and telling a better story. Sowing distrust consists of attempting to trigger doubt in the audiences mind of whatever story or explanation that is generally accepted concerning the event questioned. The documentary Loose Change used this strategy very well throughout the film. They completely re-directed the events that occurred on September 11th, shining a new light on everything from the jet that supposedly hit the pentagon to the flight that crashed in Pennsylvania. They provide factual evidence for all of their claims, which are not as far fetched as expected. With this, the audience begins to doubt whether the claims presented by the government of the events that took place during 9/11 were in fact true. Not to mention the fact that they present governmental agencies such as the FBI and CIA as mistrusted due their mysterious actions after 9/11. For example, they explain how the government never released some of the recorded phone calls of the passengers of Flight 93 or how they coerced witnesses into refusing to talk about the events that they witnessed on 9/11.
Once these agencies are no longer trusted by the audience, the tactic challenging plausibility can begin. In Loose Change, they did this by providing explanations that can be easily understood and believed. For example, one of its claims is that the Twin Towers would not have been able to collapse from the fire that emanated from the planes that crashed into the buildings, concluding that they must have collapsed due to explosives that planted in the buildings prior to 9/11. They provide evidence for this by showing examples of other, larger buildings around the world that had experienced similar fires and did not collapse, even after hours and hours. They also showed footage of when the Twin Towers collapsed, focusing on the bright flashes of light that appeared, resembling flashes that occur when buildings are taken down on purpose. They also attempt to show how certain "coincidences" of events that occurred before 9/11 are anything but. For example, the random, non routine evacuations within the World Trade center that began to happen weeks prior to the events could have easily been the source through which  the bombs that caused the building to collapse were smuggled in.
The final tactic is telling a better story than the one originally presented. Loose Change succeeded at this by creating explanations for holes in the story, as well as providing compelling arguments that seem so logically sound, they are hard not to believe. But, one criticism is that they often provided many possibilities for certain aspects of the events. In order to tell a better story, they should have provided one sound explanation in order to create a better sense of accuracy. All in all, the film Loose Change effectively uses the three tactics in order to sell the conspiracy theory of the events that happened on 9/11 to the audience.

                                

Blog Post 6

             

             The three components of argument from conspiracy are sowing distrust, challenging plausibility and telling a better story. Throughout the film Loose Change attempts to sow distrust by instilling distrust to the audience about the government. Throughout the whole film the narrator creates doubt into our minds about whether or not the government /FBI/CIA etc is telling the truth or giving out true evidence by showing the audience facts and theories that disprove what the government originally states about 9/11, because the FBI and CIA have been known to mysterious and untruthful this makes the audience believe in the narrator more and the government less. The narrator goes on to to describe these doubts by stating that the information given by the government about what damage was caused by the plane(s) when they hit the building to the factual evidence that an airplane cannot deal that much damage or cause that much fallout/destruction (whether it was the pentagon or the twin towers). Also the narrator of Loose Change showed a challenge of plausibility after the trust in institutional sources is eroded by showing the evidence of the pentagon plane crash. The narrator states that the supposed pilot of the plane had little to no training so it would of been difficult to of made direct contact with the building and that there was no evidence of the plane hitting and grinding on the ground first. Also the narrator states that, contrary to what the government had stated, the plane was a small (one or two engine) plane because the blast radios and damage made is nothing compared a commercial plane impact. Also the narrator challenges the plausibility by stating that the impact of the plane on the twin towers could not of had enough fuel/impact to of taken down the whole entire tower(s) to the ground. The narrator of Loose Change then goes into the final step, although this "final step" which is telling a better story is said throughout the film, when the narrator disproves or contradicts what the government has to say about each plane or the impact it had, he goes into a different theory that may have caused the event. This isn't very strongly showed or proven in the film, the only time was when the narrator was explaining how the twin towers crumbled and fell to the ground, saying that there were explosions in the towers. The narrator slowed the video and pointed out early timed "bombs" going off as the twin towers were descending to the ground. The narrator doesn't provide any overwhelming proof that this is the alternative case rather than what the government is telling us, only disproves the government. Also the narrator never truly points a finger to who else may of caused this horrific event, clearly the government was involved in some way although the narrator never specifically blames them for the cause of 9/11. Lastly the film doesn't have enough of its own evidence of why the buildings (twin towers and the pentagon) would have explosions in it, only disproves that a plane or the fuel could cause that much damage. Though what the film does is direct all the attention to the CIA and FBI trying to disprove them and make these organizations seem "evil" or untrusting to the point where you believe that they must of had something to do with the events of 9/11.

blog 6

 Chapter 11 of Persuasion and Social Movements identifies three different requirements in order to establish a successful conspiracy theory: sowing distrust, challenging plausibility, and telling a better story. I believe Loose Change; a movie that analyzes the events of 9/11 does embody these three components mentioned by the book.

The theorist sow distrust, meaning they make the intended audience doubt the information of the event the way they’ve been told. Loose Change plants this “seed of doubt” by acknowledging the presence of recordings from the planes that were never allowed to be released to the public. They mention the various employees of different companies who were randomly released from their positions after speaking out on their disbelief of the events of the attacks. This doubt is further established when the video mentioned that the plane that crashed into the pentagon conveniently crashed into the only section of the building that had replaced windows able to withstand the most damage.

The video challenges plausibility, in other words makes the appeared events seem unlikely to be able to occur. For example the entirety of both the plane from the pentagon crash and the plane from the Pennsylvania crash are both completely incinerated. Both cases there were nothing left but gaping holes; however it is unlikely that the plane could have reached that level of heat. In addition they recovered the passport of one of the reported hijackers, in all of the destruction in New York City it doesn’t seem too likely that they would be able to. Thought to be life-proof boxes that contained recordings did not make the crash but a passport made of paper did?

Finally the movie gives a better story, it tells you are more plausible way for such things to have occurred. The movie suggests that bombs were in addition to the plane crash were planted inside the Word Trade Center. Also suggested was that there was no plane crash in Pennsylvania but the plane landed in another state. The movie suggests government involvement in the crash and even links the President’s brother to security of the World Trade Center.