About the idea that conspiracies are all nonsense?

[Sal1981]

There have been conspiracies, we had evidence for them. Funny thing, though, is that we usually don't call them conspiracies at that point, just "scandals" or the like.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

There have been conspiracies, we had evidence for them. Funny thing, though, is that we usually don't call them conspiracies at that point, just "scandals" or the like.

And your bog-standard conspiracy nut is never the one that  breaks them.

[The Atheist]

I believe that the US government is or has been in contact with extraterrestrials. The evidence is anecdotal at best, but retired military (enlisted and officers, including generals) have been talking about this stuff for decades. Very recently I watched a 30-minute testimony of a retired CIA agent on his deathbed discuss how Eisenhower and (then-VP) Nixon were pissed with the installation at Area 51 for withholding info on crashed ET craft. Apparently, Eisenhower threatened to have the US Army tear apart the facility if they didn't give answers, which, if true, would suggest that the gubment is more compartmentalized than we expect.
T
Maybe they all lie, but all it takes is one piece of evidence. Edward Snowden vindicated four decades of whistleblowers, and if someone provides an alien body or whatever, it would be the kink that blew the whole works to smitherines.

[Hakurei Reimu]

The notion that a bunch of aliens could fly a space craft bajillions of miles through space just to crash on earth in the last thousand is ludicrous. Even more ludicrous when you consider the kind of energy that would require and just what would happen if that power core goes critical. Even more double-dog ludicrous when you consider that we would be poking at that thing with what would be the equivalent of cavemen poking at a nuclear bomb with pointed sticks in the case that it didn't.

If a real spacecraft even came into this system, it would be painfully obvious that it happened. It would be a very high energy event to even slow down in a reasonable amount of time. We would see it long before the craft got here.

The evidence would have to be equal to claim. All the testimony in the world would pale in comparison to even their equivalent to an ashtray, because no matter what it is, it is going to be interesting.

And your bog-standard conspiracy nut is never the one that  breaks them.

This.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I believe that the US government is or has been in contact with extraterrestrials. The evidence is anecdotal at best, but retired military (enlisted and officers, including generals) have been talking about this stuff for decades. Very recently I watched a 30-minute testimony of a retired CIA agent on his deathbed discuss how Eisenhower and (then-VP) Nixon were pissed with the installation at Area 51 for withholding info on crashed ET craft. Apparently, Eisenhower threatened to have the US Army tear apart the facility if they didn't give answers, which, if true, would suggest that the gubment is more compartmentalized than we expect.

They lie because they can. Deathbed or not, they can and do lie.

Maybe they all lie, but all it takes is one piece of evidence. Edward Snowden vindicated four decades of whistleblowers, and if someone provides an alien body or whatever, it would be the kink that blew the whole works to smitherines.

One piece of evidence would prove one thing, not everything. And we don't get that one piece of evidence. I watched nine seasons of X-files and had many a good laugh when the writers had to figure out how to keep people watching while still not providing any real evidence. It got pretty pathetic.

[Baruch]

Of course, I would love for real aliens to show up ... but I am pretty sure they would bring a cookbook with them ;-(

[FaithIsFilth]

Nice. Reminds me of the all those theists who come here and present their evidence that god exists by posting this:



And I will now tell you the same thing I tell them. I see absolutely no point in wasting any more of my time engaging in a discussion of evidence with a person who clearly hasn't the slightest grasp what the word evidence really means. Nice try kiddo. Better luck next time.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/msnbc-host-admits-to-parroting-white-house-talking-points.html

There you go. They are admitting it themselves. Is that good enough for you, Johan? How's that rat poison taste?

[FaithIsFilth]

More

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DC59K76LGK4#t=41

Also, Cenk Uygar says he was fired from MSNBC not because MSNBC didn't like him, but because Washington didn't like him.

[Baruch]

Parroting White House talking points, isn't a conspiracy ... it is lazy reporting ;-)

[drunkenshoe]

Guys, nobody outside the USA was actually surprised by an Islamic terrorist attack on America. The only surprising thing was the SCALE and HOW it was done. Some sort of an attack was predicted many times before it happened. And that scale; the specific targets and how it is carried out points a lot about the nature of 9/11. 

Think from the enemy's side for a moment. You are a terrorist. You want to plan an attack on the USA. Which probbaly you started to plan in 90s. What is your goal? You have 19 ready perpetrators to carry out whatever you wish to do.

a)Kill as many civillians as you can; scare the hell out of people from daily life. Instilling fear. How do you do that? You can send each of those 19 perpetrators to different big city subways in rush hours loaded with plastic bombs to blow up the whole place (19 different places).

In this scenario,

-with a good timing you would kill far more people than 3000 over all with 19 suicide bombers. And the panic would be more severe
-you would also destroy a very important transportation in big cities.

And this would have been VERY EASY thing to do. Much easier than flying planes into skycrapers. Because remember that the year is 2001. There are NO terrorist attack alerts, nobody is suspicious of middle eastern looking or black men with backpacks walking around.

Nobody is expecting anything what so ever. Load a huge packpack with...let's say c-4 as much as you can.

But they didn't do that because 9/11 wasn't first about killing people.

b)Attack on specific targets without any explosives. Flying planes into skycrapers. FAR MORE RISKY. Doesn't even come remotely close to blowing yourself up in a subway which noone would even notice until it's done.

You are in a confined place in air. MOST importantly, to accomplish this you need to reveal yourself.  Everything is on your personal ability to start, to have control and end it. The timing, the moves. People do not know about you, but you don't know about the people on the plane either.

Let's s ay you did all that. The main problem is to fly the plane into the skycraper. The question? Do you really have the planned end game to cause the towers collapse or it was just another result of the attack? Did you really plan or even care that towers would collapse or is it just about hitting the towers and the pentagon?

You don't feel the need to send a message afterwards,

because in 2001

-NO Youtube, NO Facebook
-NO Smart phones used by masses
-Google has several years to become google

There are no social platforms whatsoever followed by masses to guarantee a viral message, hold them as in one audience. Any other message is likley to be caught up and used/censored by authorities. So leaving a message is useless, not to mention there is no understanding of it yet, because it will develop later by the social media becoming social media.

There have been lots of inside jobs, patsies...ect. BUT 9/11 is not an inside job. 9/11 does not get connected to Gladio Operations. It has a certain ideology and a world vision behind it.

If it was planned by the US government, the attack would target a few military bases at the same time, because it would be

-easier to control or manipulate
-easier to suppress information
-easier to build the wanted perception for anything else afterwards
-more profitable, more beneficial which is the point of ALL 9/11 conspiracy theories

A few big attacks on millitary bases on US soil would be the most legitimate cause for any war and saves you from a lot of bullshit you have to spew afterwards to convince world media. Clean. Neat. More profitable and beneficial from every aspect.


The funniest thing about conspiracy theories is their tangled webs and far fetched loose ends, while the motivation presented is always a very simple one. That's why they almost always blow. Because their inspiration is sensation and scandal and catasthrophic events rather than HOW and WHY. This is what draws people to look for conspiracy theories; dedective stories; playing Sherlock. Not willing to accept realistic scenarios; causes or reasons, but the need of looking for something extraordinary. It's a collective response that rises with the cultural traits of a gvien culture. It works different but pretty much the same everyhwere on the rock.

[widdershins]

You are correct that it is the claimants duty to give evidence in support. I only said no one could debunk what I was saying, because when 9/11 comes up, you will often see people say something like "9/11 questioners? All concerns people have about 9/11 have been cleared up and debunked. Next!" I think it's a false statement when someone says that all concerns have been cleared up and debunked, so that's the only reason I brought up debunking. You are completely right when you say it is the claimant that has to provide the evidence. About the claims that have supposedly been debunked... all I would say is you don't even need explosives in the buildings for Bush and Cheney to let it happen (maybe the buildings falling were just a bonus that could have happened or not happened), so I don't even bother with the explosives part of the story.

Why would one have the view that a truther does, without complete evidence to back them up? I can't say for sure because I myself am unsure about 9/11, but many truthers would probably say they think it's obvious that America was not caught off guard and attacked by Muslim terrorists. I don't subscribe to this line of thinking, but I see where they're coming from. I think there's a good chance Bush and Cheney let it happen, but at the same time, I think Johan and others have a pretty decent argument when they say it would be hard to keep such a secret.

It is fine to dismiss the 9/11 conspiracy theories based on lack of evidence. No problem with that. Some scientists will dismiss the multiverse idea because the evidence is just not there. I don't understand this stuff very well, but from what I do know, I would say there's a decent chance the multiverse idea is correct, and there's a decent chance the idea is not correct. Other scientists, despite the lack of evidence, will talk about what may be the case. They will say there may be a multiverse, or other dimensions, or extra-terrestrials, or that we may be living in a computer simulation. Should we completely dismiss these ideas out of hand because of a lack of evidence? Not everything in the world comes down to having evidence or not having evidence. What about when they give ideas about exactly how life on Earth may have started, or when they give ideas about why the Big Bang happened? We are simplifying things way too much when we just say "Evidence or STFU". I value evidence just like anyone else, but evidence is not all there is.

I understand that it's MSNBC and others job to push the White House's line they want to be pushed, but I really have a problem with people like Rachel Maddow calling the 9/11 questions and questioners "dangerous". Some of the parents of victims of the WTC collapse ripped Rachel Maddow a new one for demonizing them for having questions, when their children were murdered. Their freaking children were murdered, and Rachel Maddow calls them dangerous for asking questions about the murder of their sons and daughters? These parents have the right to ask questions, and calling them dangerous is beyond a cheap shot/ low blow by the White House who dictates what MSNBC and Maddow are to say.

I'm fine with people saying 9/11 conspiracies are silly and unlikely, but is it really necessary for these people to be labelled dangerous nuts? I get it if you're calling people nuts or dangerous for being anti-vaccines, and I understand that a whole lot of 9/11 truthers are also anti-vaccines, but should we really be calling the parents of a dead son or daughter, who has questions, or others with questions dangerous nuts? It's Maddow's job to get the people to buy into the idea that they shouldn't be questioning the mainstream. I can understand her calling people dangerous, because she's only doing her job. Others who call these people dangerous though, when it's not their job to do so? I think they should leave the demonizing of people who simply ask questions to shills like Rachel Maddow.

I'm with you on most of that, except the comparison between conspiracy theories and science.  Science works a little differently in this case.  It's not "evidence to support this theory" so much as it is "here is a possible explanation based on what we know".  Take big bang theory, for instance.  It isn't an idea someone came up with and then they started finding evidence to support it.  It was a look at the universe and a ton of calculations, then "Let's see what the universe would have been like before we started looking at it by running this model backwards" and, using the data (not "evidence") alone, big bang theory was born.  As for the idea of a multiverse, pretty much the same thing, only not quite as solid, as I understand it.  It's just a possible explanation based on the math which works in this universe.  Though they do use terms like "evidence to support it" that's really a misnomer.  If a scientist is collecting "evidence" instead of "data" he's a crap scientist who's not being objective.

When it comes to the woo woo stuff like ghost hunting and conspiracy theories, they are looking for evidence.  Most are not in the least bit interested in data because data may not support their belief.  Conspiracy theories are far closer to a religious belief than to anything scientific.  While a scientist may be collecting data which he hopes will be evidence to support a theory, he's just as excited when it doesn't because science is about gaining understanding, and it doesn't matter what that understanding is, so long as you understand reality better than you did before.  Conspiracy theories, that's not about learning anything or about understanding.  It's about living out a fantasy in which life is filled with mystery and evildoers you are helping to thwart.  You have to look at the reasons behind why they do what they do.  For science, the reason is simple understanding.  Emotions and desires get in the way of that and are discouraged.  For conspiracy theories, it's all about the emotional state.  The discovery is just an excuse.

My favorite example of this is chemtrails, the dumbest conspiracy theory of all time.  I saw a documentary a few years back about the start of the chemtrail nonsense.  The guy literally admitted that he walked out his door one day and noticed contrails in the sky and said to himself, "What if they are using those to spread chemicals into the atmosphere?"  And from that day forward, they were.  No evidence, no data, no looking into it, just a thought that exploded into a conspiracy theory which there has never been a scrap of proof for.

You do make a good argument, but I've spent too long with people of the mentality and I simply know what they're like.  I know that conspiracy theorists are generally the exact opposite of objective, that their "theories" are their religious doctrine and that literally nothing they say can be trusted; EVERYTHING must be fact-checked.  That's not to say that all people who believe in conspiracy theories are like that.  I used to buy into one or two and I don't think I'm like that.  But every fact I've ever checked, literally every single one which a) mattered and b) could be checked (there was information available) has fallen through.  So from my point of view, I gave conspiracy theorists the benefit of the doubt.  But the mentality among them is exactly the opposite of objective.  If you prove to them beyond doubt (and it MUST BE proof beyond doubt) that something they believe is wrong, they simply never bring it up again and move on to the next thing.  They pretend the things they got wrong simply never existed.  You can't get them to even acknowledge you in a forum if you post about something they got wrong.  They simply skip over it as if they don't even see it and have the conversation around you.  These people NEVER count their losses.  With them, it is true until you prove it wrong.  And when you prove it wrong it is excised from their memories and they simply move on to the next "truth".

If you want to see this for yourself, join a UFO forum.  Read the conversations with a truly objective, open mind.  Look for evidence to support their claims.  Check all their facts.  And post your thoughts.  They'll make up terms to describe you and what a dick you are, like "septic skeptic".  They'll all get excited about some new video and it will be the only thing they can talk about, until someone says, "Yeah, that was shot down in the '90s", and then they will NEVER talk about it again.  They won't even respond to posts about it.  They will simply ignore every scrap of information which shows that they got something wrong from that point forward.  Forever.  And that very day they will have the same level of excitement for the next thing, the next video, the next Photoshopped picture.  And it WILL BE true until you can PROVE it wrong.  And your proof must be absolute.  Someone confessing to faking it, that's not enough.  They have to PROVE they faked it AND that they did so without secret knowledge about the REAL (insert nuttery).  Bigfoot was faked?  I'm shocked!  Well, whoever made the mask MUST HAVE seen a REAL bigfoot because it looks just like him!  UFO video was faked?  I don't know.  It looks pretty convincing.  Can you PROVE you faked it?  Now hold on one minute!  All you did was fake a video exactly like this one while I watched.  Can you prove you faked THIS ONE?

I'm sorry, but it has been my experience that these people are nuts.  If there's a conspiracy, bring me evidence.  I don't care about what "may have" happened.  You can't convict someone because they "may have" killed someone.  I can't do anything about the crimes the government "may have" committed.  I'm not going to jump off a cliff to avoid a long and painful death because I "may have" cancer.  If you don't have evidence, you don't have anything and the conspiracy is pointless.

[FaithIsFilth]

I agree with most of that. I didn't mean to compare conspiracy theorists to scientists. I know they are nothing alike, and that most conspiracy theorists are whacked out. If I ever met these people, they probably wouldn't like me at all. I'm a left leaning atheist who is pro vaccines, and I think abortion is the best thing in the world. Why do I still watch these people's videos if I know they're full of shit? Me disagreeing with someone on a bunch of points is not reason enough for me to stop watching them. I still watch CNN, TYT, Secular Talk, RT, etc even though I hate them all and think they're all shit. I'll watch some Infowars clips from time to time even though I think they're full of shit and running a clown show. At least I can say that Alex Jones is a pretty entertaining comedian. That's all he is really. A comedian.

I agree about chemtrails. I think that idea is dumb too. Same with the idea that UFOs are alien spacecraft. I don't think extra-terrestrials have visited us, but I do assume they exist as do most scientists, despite the lack of evidence. This is why I say that evidence is not everything. If you want to show someone for sure that extra-terrestrials exist, you need to have the evidence to show them, true, but you don't need to see this alien life to say that it probably exists, and it's extremely unlikely that it does not exist.

Millions of people do think 9/11 was done by the Bush administration and these people are sure of themselves, but at the same time you have millions of people that have doubts, and these people are not like the average conspiracy theorist. Look at someone like APA. He's a smart guy. He's a left leaning atheist. He's not really anything like your average conspiracy theorist, but he says he has his doubts about 9/11. Is he a nut? Should APA be called a nutcase just because he has doubts? I don't think so. Not everyone asking questions is a crazy conspiracy theorist. Former CIA and FBI guys have said they think there's a very good chance the Bush administration let it happen. These are not your run of the mill conspiracy whackos.

I accept that I could be way off when it comes to 9/11. One of the arguments we use against theists is "Look at all these other people believing in different gods. That shows that the human mind is easily duped. If humans are that easily duped, how can you be sure you haven't just been duped too?" I accept that my thinking could be off, and maybe I've just driven myself a bit crazy by watching too many conspiracy theory videos. I don't think that this is the case, but I accept that it could be. I've never been a member of a conspiracy theory forum. I like how this forum keeps me grounded and challenges my ideas. I have no problem switching positions if I think the other person's argument is superior to mine. I've switched multiple positions on here, so I think I've shown that I'm not someone who is closed to changing their mind. I may change my mind about this at some point. I'm still young and learning how life works. I'm still just in my twenties. Anyways, I think it's good that we are having more of a mature, adult discussion about this topic than what usually happens with this topic, and I thank you for that.

[Johan]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/msnbc-host-admits-to-parroting-white-house-talking-points.html

There you go. They are admitting it themselves. Is that good enough for you, Johan? How's that rat poison taste?

Oh boy a real live article written by a conspiracy theory idiot. And god exists because the bible says so. Guess you really showed me kiddo. Keep this up and I may sprain something from rolling my eyes so hard.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Guys, nobody outside the USA was actually surprised by an Islamic terrorist attack on America. The only surprising thing was the SCALE and HOW it was done. Some sort of an attack was predicted many times before it happened. And that scale; the specific targets and how it is carried out points a lot about the nature of 9/11. 

The number of times I've had this conversation with people who seem utterly dumbfounded at the thought that people in the ME actually disliked the US. Gosh. People seem to forget the USS Cole bombings, or the attacks on the WTC prior to 9/11, or the Embassy attacks in Kenya.

9/11 ramped up the general discourse of otherism now unfortunately prevalent in many Islamic countries to a new height. But you're 100% right. Anyone who knows anything about Mohammed Atta et al. can quite clearly trace the fall to extremism throughout the 90s. It's not a surprise they did what they did, just how they did it.

[drunkenshoe]

Size, Fidel. The country is so big, domestic flights are used and treated like bus transportation between cities we have where I live. Well, they are not the same thing in many aspects. Think about the difference between threatening people in a bus and in a plane. Very different things. Also domestic flights in the US take several hours. Time to observe, get ready and plan. Here if I travel to big cities longest I fly is an hour. 45 mins not even an hour. There are so many flights in the US. Everything about domestic flights in US provided a lot of advantage to use for those fuckers. Those 19 attackers probably flew around many times, just to fly around. 

Also I don't tink they planned to collapse the towers.


Americans are very isolated. Most people have no idea what is going on outside their country, esp. about policies imposed by their own.