The Fallacy of Positive Instances? Or the Truth?

  Conspiracies are the lifeblood of almost any person. By human nature we just love to gossip, to get the low down, to get the so-called 'dirt' on anyone or anything, and sometimes this comes to a fault. It can come to a point where people don't even have to work at convincing us anymore, but rather just have to provide a set of circumstances that our brains would deem plausible.

  The theory on the Fallacy of Positive Instances discusses how we typically search, whether it be consciously or subconsciously, for the parts that describe something best, and then fail to see the parts that are 'off' or 'different'. Beliefs in fallacies don't stop there, however. When faced with a lack of evidence, or a crime with no real motive, we tend to gravitate towards something that can cure our uncertainty and give us stability. One such example of this occurrence is in the 9/11 attacks where two planes crashed into the Twin Towers. These attacks were completely out of the blue, and nobody was ready for them. Hundreds of people died senselessly, but surprisingly the families of the victims are the least susceptible to these theories. The families of the victims, as far as I can recall, have never blamed our government for the attacks, and often are the most supportive of the government's actions overseas. Both sides of this observation can be

An instance of the Fallacy of Positive Instances
What do you see here? Some claim that the various
American notes depict the fall of the WTC Towers
when folded a specific way. 

easily explained by the theory of the Fallacy of Positive Instances. Dennis Coon's Psychology: A Journey describes this theory as our tendency to accept things that confirm our expectations, and then dismiss the rest. In the 9/11 conspiracies we see a lot of repetition, claims that the government either planned the demolition of the towers, or that the planes were an excuse for our government to attack the middle east.
 Conspiracy theorists often point to 'facts' they see in the videos of the towers' collapse. Dynamite, Thermite, C4, conspiracy theorists look for every possible way to convince the people of their idea, and once the audience has taken the bait, they tend to ignore glaring errors in the arguments of the theorists. For example: To prove their conspiracies that the towers collapsed in a controlled demolition, theorists often use comparisons to other building fires. These people claim that there's no way the Twin Towers could have collapsed after only 1-2 hours of sustained heat from the jet-liners fuel. They first claim that the tanks in the planes were not that full in the first place, which they have never cited a source for, but continue to claim its truth. They also give comparisons to a fire in a 13-story hotel which burned for over 4 hours, yet never collapsed. Of course the conspiracy theorists never draw attention to the size discrepancy between the buildings, and often lack conclusive evidence.
  Every day people utilize the Fallacy of Positive Instances to try and trick the human mind and left unchecked it could very well could! It's up to us to make sure we're analyzing our information in an unbiased manner, and attempt to view something from all angles rather than succumbing to a sort of 'tunnel vision' where we see only what we want.