Are there any credible conspiracy theories?

Ted_YNWA

I have removed that reddit link. Mentioning names and addresses of people linked to Epstein is dangerous libel territory.

Arbitrary

Ted_YNWA wrote: »

I have removed that reddit link. Mentioning names and addresses of people linked to Epstein is dangerous libel territory.

Huh? Not for boards.ie. I guess DohnJoea reported it.

harrylittle

Mr_Muffin wrote: »

I've never come across a conspiracy theory that I thought could actually be true. It seems that when you delve into one, it doesn't take long to see if it usually based on questionable logic.

Admittedly, I've never delved into any conspiracy with great detail, as I found it difficult to decipher the facts from some wack jobs take on things.

Are they are that actually hold-up if you take a closer look?

A conspiracy theory in a comfort blanket for leftists that either cant handle the truth or have lost the argument.

ShatterAlan

King Mob wrote: »

So therefore they put a bunch of silent explosives in all the buildings in secret?
Or do you subscribe to the space laser theory?
Neither seems logical to me.

Why then do you not believe the Holocaust denial theory?
Compared to other conspiracy theories, it's quite realisitic.

Why not chemtrails? That's actually pretty self-consistent and rational compared to the ones you are claiming at plausible.

"Silent" explosives? Is there such a thing?

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

"Silent" explosives? Is there such a thing?

9/11 conspiracy theorists used to claim the buildings were blown up in a conventional manner, but when it was pointed out to them how loud demolitions are and how there was no evidence of that on the day, they modified their conspiracy to include thermite (a burning material) being used. When it was pointed out that it's simply not possible to demolish a building of that size, in that time, with thermite, they modified it again to "nano-thermite", which they started creating properties for. They've even modified it further to "super-thermite".

Also, some conspiracy theorists collected and were sent samples (from the internet), in which they found iron and aluminium, since thermite also contains iron and aluminium they decided it was definitive proof. To date, as far as I am aware, no member of AE911 (the conspiracy group) has ever explained or detailed how it was done.

King Mob

ShatterAlan wrote: »

"Silent" explosives? Is there such a thing?

No, there isn't. That's my point.

9/11 conspiracy theories rely on the existence of such things.
We agree that such a thing is impossible.
You reject the idea of Flat Earth and Chemtrails because they hinge on something that is impossible.

Therefore you have to agree that 9/11 conspiracy theories are likewise false.
Right?

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The passport has been discussed thoroughly in this thread. It came from the first plane, which hit at 08:46, was discovered on the ground and was handed in (by a civilian to a police officer) sometime between then and when the tower collapsed at 09:59.

Which news channel was it mentioned on and what time? (I was watching it that day and can't recall that)



News channels reported many things that day, a truck full of explosives (which it wasn't), up to 8 hijacked aircraft, etc - this is because it was live, fluid news on an insane day, with such extraordinary events it became almost impossible to separate fact from rumour. Obviously as time went on the facts became clearer.

I can understand that news outlets sometimes get things wrong in the heat of the moment. Reports come in of a certain event the facts of which are murky. Sometimes figures are inaccurate like for example there is a mass shooting and the death toll is unconfirmed or unknown for sometime etc.


OR an event is reported to have happened when in fact it was a mistake and it didn't happen like a celebrity died, got divorced, whatever.


What I find suspicious is when an event is reported to have happened BEFORE it happened.

King Mob

ShatterAlan wrote: »

What I find suspicious is when an event is reported to have happened BEFORE it happened.

Why is it suspicious?

We keep asking conspiracy theorists to explain this, but they never can.
They can't explain why the BBC would have knowledge that it was going to collapse before.
They can't explain why the BBC would release this information early.

If this was because of a conspiracy, it makes ZERO sense for them to supply the BBC the information early and it makes ZERO sense why the BBC would report on it early.
If there really was a conspiracy, it wouldn't do either of these things.

So unless you've a good argument how and why it supports a conspiracy, we can conclude that this factoid does not indicate a conspiracy.

Also, it seems that you are trying to deflect away from your claims about the passport. This is a common trick conspiracy theorists pull when they realise that their 100% proof starts to fall apart under scrutiny. They quickly try to spit out another topic to avoid the issues with the previous one and pretend it wasn't just torn apart.

Are you now dropping your arguments about the passport?
If so, why?

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

9/11 conspiracy theorists used to claim the buildings were blown up in a conventional manner, but when it was pointed out to them how loud demolitions are and how there was no evidence of that on the day, they modified their conspiracy to include thermite (a burning material) being used. When it was pointed out that it's simply not possible to demolish a building of that size, in that time, with thermite, they modified it again to "nano-thermite", which they started creating properties for. They've even modified it further to "super-thermite".

Also, some conspiracy theorists collected and were sent samples (from the internet), in which they found iron and aluminium, since thermite also contains iron and aluminium they decided it was definitive proof. To date, as far as I am aware, no member of AE911 (the conspiracy group) has ever explained or detailed how it was done.

Didn't many people including fire crews report that they heard explosions?

ShatterAlan

King Mob wrote: »

Why is it suspicious?

We keep asking conspiracy theorists to explain this, but they never can.
They can't explain why the BBC would have knowledge that it was going to collapse before.
They can't explain why the BBC would release this information early.

If this was because of a conspiracy, it makes ZERO sense for them to supply the BBC the information early and it makes ZERO sense why the BBC would report on it early.
If there really was a conspiracy, it wouldn't do either of these things.

So unless you've a good argument how and why it supports a conspiracy, we can conclude that this factoid does not indicate a conspiracy.

Also, it seems that you are trying to deflect away from your claims about the passport. This is a common trick conspiracy theorists pull when they realise that their 100% proof starts to fall apart under scrutiny. They quickly try to spit out another topic to avoid the issues with the previous one and pretend it wasn't just torn apart.

Are you now dropping your arguments about the passport?
If so, why?

To be honest I haven't a clue what you are on about half the time. What you type makes little if any sense.


And I'm not trying to deflect from the passport. But you accuse me of deflection when practically every post from you brings up Holocaust denial, moon landings, chemtrails when we are talking about a passport.



You should practice what you preach.

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

I can understand that news outlets sometimes get things wrong in the heat of the moment. Reports come in of a certain event the facts of which are murky. Sometimes figures are inaccurate like for example there is a mass shooting and the death toll is unconfirmed or unknown for sometime etc.


OR an event is reported to have happened when in fact it was a mistake and it didn't happen like a celebrity died, got divorced, whatever.


What I find suspicious is when an event is reported to have happened BEFORE it happened.

It's more important to ask why it is suspicious, and what is the alternative explanation

And to expand Kingmob's point about the example of the BBC reporting the collapse of WTC 7 before it fell.

Explanation 1: There had been reports all afternoon that the building was about to collapse, it was a simple mistake (many were made on the day) that the building had fallen. This was later confirmed and explained by the BBC.

Explanation 2: ?

There is no real second explanation. However, some people dream up a scenario whereby the people who carried out 911 as an inside job, for some illogical reason, decided to reveal the entire plan to a major news agency, and tell them the building collapsed before it did, none of which makes any sense since the building was still standing. And there's no evidence for it.

What's even more interesting is that these types people find it unbelievable (suspicious) a news station made a straightforward mistake on a chaotic news day, yet they find the above extraordinary explanation perfectly believable.

King Mob

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Didn't many people including fire crews report that they heard explosions?

No. They reported random single explosions throughout the day and throughout the building.
This is not what demolitions sound like.
Demolitions have a rapid sequence of extremely loud explosions imediatly before the collapse.
This sound is not hear, reported or recorded. This is why conspiracy theorists have to invent the notion of silent explosives.

King Mob

ShatterAlan wrote: »

To be honest I haven't a clue what you are on about half the time. What you type makes little if any sense.


And I'm not trying to deflect from the passport. But you accuse me of deflection when practically every post from you brings up Holocaust denial, moon landings, chemtrails when we are talking about a passport.


You should practice what you preach.

Ok. Then answer the question you've been dodging.

Do you believe the passport is planted or fake? Yes or no?

It's my bet you're going to dodge this question yet again.

silliussoddius

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Didn't many people including fire crews report that they heard explosions?

Or did they say sounds like explosions and when the "truthers" use their quotes they leave "sounds like" out. Given the buildings were full of electrical equipment, elevator shafts etc., that's what you'd expect.

storker

silliussoddius wrote: »

Or did they say sounds like explosions and when the "truthers" use their quotes they leave "sounds like" out. Given the buildings were full of electrical equipment, elevator shafts etc., that's what you'd expect.

Close enough. One case I remember had a witness say (I'm paraphrasing) "We heard a noise like explosions, but it was the floors collapsing." The "Truthers" reported this as "We heard a noise like explosions", leaving out the bit where the witnesses indicated that they didn't actually believe they heard explosions.

Dohnjoe

storker wrote: »

Close enough. One case I remember had a witness say (I'm paraphrasing) "We heard a noise like explosions, but it was the floors collapsing." The "Truthers" reported this as "We heard a noise like explosions", leaving out the bit where the witnesses indicated that they didn't actually believe they heard explosions.

Indeed, you'll find that "truthers" do this a lot. A lot. The level of dishonesty with these types of beliefs is staggering.

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's more important to ask why it is suspicious, and what is the alternative explanation

And to expand Kingmob's point about the example of the BBC reporting the collapse of WTC 7 before it fell.

Explanation 1: There had been reports all afternoon that the building was about to collapse, it was a simple mistake (many were made on the day) that the building had fallen. This was later confirmed and explained by the BBC.

Explanation 2: ?

There is no real second explanation. However, some people dream up a scenario whereby the people who carried out 911 as an inside job, for some illogical reason, decided to reveal the entire plan to a major news agency, and tell them the building collapsed before it did, none of which makes any sense since the building was still standing. And there's no evidence for it.

What's even more interesting is that these types people find it unbelievable (suspicious) a news station made a straightforward mistake on a chaotic news day, yet they find the above extraordinary explanation perfectly believable.

Saying that a building had collapsed when it hadn't is not a simple mistake. There were several buildings that were equally badly damaged in the area and none of them were mistakenly reported as having collapsed.



But it's clear that you have absolutely no doubt about any of the events because they were reported that way so they must be true and there's no other explanation. They reported a passport from inside the plane as having been found before the towers came down ergo it must be true no matter how much of a fluke such an eventuality is. Wedding rings magically came off passengers' fingers and too were found in the aftermath. Not only were these rings found but their owners were almost immediately identified. If you found a wedding ring in the street how one Earth would you go about identifying who it belonged to?

dresden8

Mr_Muffin wrote: »

I've never come across a conspiracy theory that I thought could actually be true. It seems that when you delve into one, it doesn't take long to see if it usually based on questionable logic.

Admittedly, I've never delved into any conspiracy with great detail, as I found it difficult to decipher the facts from some wack jobs take on things.

Are they are that actually hold-up if you take a closer look?

Suez. Iran-Contra. Collusion in Northern Ireland. Dublin Monaghan bombings.

Off the top of my head.

Edit: Except they're not theories.

King Mob

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Saying that a building had collapsed when it hadn't is not a simple mistake. There were several buildings that were equally badly damaged in the area and none of them were mistakenly reported as having collapsed.

If you're arguing it can't have been a mistake, then what was it?

ShatterAlan wrote: »

But it's clear that you have absolutely no doubt about any of the events because they were reported that way so they must be true and there's no other explanation.


They reported a passport from inside the plane as having been found before the towers came down ergo it must be true no matter how much of a fluke such an eventuality is.

Again, what other explanation is there?

ShatterAlan

King Mob wrote: »

Ok. Then answer the question you've been dodging.

Do you believe the passport is planted or fake? Yes or no?

It's my bet you're going to dodge this question yet again.

I don't know. Maybe there was no passport at all just a made up story that one was found.


Making up a story like that is no more implausible than making up a story that Saddam Hussein's guards were throwing infants out of incubators, that weather balloon trailers were mobile Vx nerve gas labs or that Ghadaffi issued his troops with viagra so they could be well "equipped" for mass rapes.

King Mob

ShatterAlan wrote: »

I don't know.

Ok. So since there's no other explanation, we have to conclude that the passport survived.
That's the only explanation, so it must be the explanation.

So maybe you're just wrong about how impossible/unlikely it is.

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Maybe there was no passport at all just a made up story that one was found.

This is the same as faking it.
Do you believe all the other items that were recovered were also made up? The answer is obviously not, so this explanation is complete nonsense and it's not possible.
Again we're left with only one possible explanation.

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Making up a story like that is no more implausible than making up a story that Saddam Hussein's guards were throwing infants out of incubators, that weather balloon trailers were mobile Vx nerve gas labs or that Ghadaffi issued his troops with viagra so they could be well "equipped" for mass rapes.

You're trying to deflect again because you're realising how flimsy your best evidence for 9/11 is.

Should I also take that "I don't know" to apply to the alternative explanation for the BBC report? If not, please outline your explanation.

ShatterAlan

dresden8 wrote: »

Suez. Iran-Contra. Collusion in Northern Ireland. Dublin Monaghan bombings.

Off the top of my head.

Edit: Except they're not theories.

I think that the conspiracy deniers are people who cannot bring themselves to contemplate the thought that Western governments and their proxies could so callously sacrifice innocent people for political gain. They want, so dearly to believe, that their best interests are at heart and that they would never be the victim of any kind of action even if that action were to help further an agenda.


Only evil governments and mafiosi do such things. "Good" western governments never would.

King Mob

ShatterAlan wrote: »

I think that the conspiracy deniers are people who cannot bring themselves to contemplate the thought that Western governments and their proxies could so callously sacrifice innocent people for political gain. They want, so dearly to believe, that their best interests are at heart and that they would never be the victim of any kind of action even if that action were to help further an agenda.


Only evil governments and mafiosi do such things. "Good" western governments never would.

Again, not once has anyone here argued this.
This is a rather lazy and dishonest strawman.

ShatterAlan

King Mob wrote: »

If you're arguing it can't have been a mistake, then what was it?


Again, what other explanation is there?

Mob, I know the game you are trying to play. You're trying to force my hand and I'm not playing along with your shabby little ruse. I point to a glaring anomaly, one that you can't satisfactorily explain other than "well that's how it happened and if you don't believe it then you're away with the fairies" and you want me to provide you with alternatives. No thanks. believe the incredible if that gives you comfort and helps you sleep at night but don't recruit me to provide you with explanations for you.

ShatterAlan

King Mob wrote: »

Ok. So since there's no other explanation, we have to conclude that the passport survived.
That's the only explanation, so it must be the explanation.

So maybe you're just wrong about how impossible/unlikely it is.


This is the same as faking it.
Do you believe all the other items that were recovered were also made up? The answer is obviously not, so this explanation is complete nonsense and it's not possible.
Again we're left with only one possible explanation.


You're trying to deflect again because you're realising how flimsy your best evidence for 9/11 is.

Should I also take that "I don't know" to apply to the alternative explanation for the BBC report? If not, please outline your explanation.

No it's not. You want me to do your analysis for you. And it's a trick. I'll go back to the knife in the back of the dead man analogy. Someone tells you they don't believe it was suicide as that would be practically impossible. All you're doing is saying "well suicide is the only explanation. Everything else is impossible"


And that just shows that you are playing games.

King Mob

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Mob, I know the game you are trying to play. You're trying to force my hand and I'm not playing along with your shabby little ruse. I point to a glaring anomaly, one that you can't satisfactorily explain other than "well that's how it happened and if you don't believe it then you're away with the fairies" and you want me to provide you with alternatives. No thanks. believe the incredible if that gives you comfort and helps you sleep at night but don't recruit me to provide you with explanations for you.

ANd now you're resorting to dodging again. I'm not playing any game, I'm just trying to get you to answer direct questions. You just keep refusing to do so because you can't answer honestly or directly.

You don't have any alternatives because there are none.
The only explanations for the anomalies are the mundane ones. The passport was real and it survived. The BBC report was a mistake.
There's nothing else these things could be.


Since this is the case, we see that neither anomaly can point to conspiracy.

And these were your best examples to show there was a conspiracy.
What does that tell you.

ShatterAlan

King Mob wrote: »

Again, not once has anyone here argued this.
This is a rather lazy and dishonest strawman.

You and your "strawmen" again.


Every second post out of you contains a strawman. I'm done humouring you.

King Mob

ShatterAlan wrote: »

No it's not.

Then what other explanations are there?

You keep dodging that question because you can't answer it.

King Mob

ShatterAlan wrote: »

You and your "strawmen" again.


Every second post out of you contains a strawman. I'm done humouring you.

Yes, it is a strawman because noone has used that argument.
If you believe someone has, point it out.

If you can't and don't like people pointing out you're being dishonest, maybe stop using dishonest strawmen.

The Nal

ShatterAlan wrote: »

I think that the conspiracy deniers are people who cannot bring themselves to contemplate the thought that Western governments and their proxies could so callously sacrifice innocent people for political gain. They want, so dearly to believe, that their best interests are at heart and that they would never be the victim of any kind of action even if that action were to help further an agenda.


Only evil governments and mafiosi do such things. "Good" western governments never would.

No one has said that. Your broad black and white approach is indicative of a flawed way of modern thinking largely brought on by over use of social media where you can only be right or wrong.

The real world lies somewhere in between.

There have been many credible and proven conspiracy theories mentioned here by "conspiracy deniers" regarding western governments. The reason we know they happen is because theres evidence to support the theory.