Are there any credible conspiracy theories?

Dohnjoe

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.

WTC 7 was on fire for most of the day, fire chiefs were repeatedly claiming that it was close to collapse. The BBC report literally had WTC on fire in the background. So yes it was a mistake. We know this, because they later confirmed it was a mistake (many media outlets confirmed mistakes on the day)

Again, just because you can't "believe" something doesn't automatically mean something else happened. At any point feel free to explain what alternatively happened.

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.

This is false.

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.

A passport was found, many other perishable items were found, there has never been a plausible alternative explanation, so yes it's quite possibly the truth.

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?

They weren't almost immediately identified, that's false. Perhaps there was e.g. engravings on the ring. Forensic scientists are incredible, in a massive operation, for example, they identified all the passengers and crew (and terrorists) from remains from the plane that smashed into the Pentagon.

Elmer Blooker

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?

It should be remembered that there was no such thing as a 'conspiracy theory' or 'conspiracy theorist' prior to the assassination of JFK (work that one out for yourselves ) This is recent historically speaking so its hard to say which 'conspiracy theories' would have turned out to be true? I can think of a few.

Imagine a conversation in the 1930s, the 'conspiracy theorist' says something like this:
"Hitler is a danger and will destroy Europe, he's using the Spanish Civil War to train the Luftwaffe for a coming war, he needs to be stopped!"
Reply: "stop spreading nonsense conspiracy theories, Hitler is doing us a favour by stopping the spread of communism, just give him Austria and part of Czechoslovakia and that will keep him quiet, enough of your looney theories"

August 1914: "this will be a long a terrible war and millions will die, the German army is huge and it will drag on ..."
Reply: "stop spreading conspiracy theory nonsense, our boys will be home for Christmas!"

It might sound ridiculous what I've just written but most people though Hitler was a man 'you can do business with' in the 30s.

King Mob

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

It should be remembered that there was no such thing as a 'conspiracy theory' or 'conspiracy theorist' prior to the assassination of JFK (work that one out for yourselves )

Work what out though.
You seem to be implying that the term is somehow connected the the JFK assassination other than it was the first widely believed and popular conspiracy theories in America

Before then, conspiracy theories weren't so much in the popular culture.

They certainly existed though. Like the one about how the Jews secretly controlled the world. That was a conspiracy theory from the turn of the century.

Drumpot

The reason most drugs are illegal around the world has little to do with their effect on people. It was driven by the head of the FBI in the early 20th century with racism and religious dogma (drugs are bad) at its core. Google “Harry Anslinger” for more information. He travelled around the world putting countries under pressure to make certain drugs illegal. Not many people know this.

This has led to a ridiculous mindset people have aboit drugs (drugs are bad and people who take them are bad) which in turn fuels the underground nature of drugs and is why there are drug wars.

The conspiracy I suppose is that people have been convinced there is some moral or ethical principle guiding the laws that govern the illegal drug trade.

I think it’s very true that many people lack the capacity for critical thinking. Certainly when it comes to an accepted norm “drugs are bad and people who take or sell them are bad”. So why are people who take or sell these drugs bad? Because it’s illegal? But why is it illegal?

Once you start exploring the history behind why drugs are illegal the whole argument falls apart.

The Nal

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

It should be remembered that there was no such thing as a 'conspiracy theory' or 'conspiracy theorist' prior to the assassination of JFK (work that one out for yourselves )

We knew about Operation Himmler in the Nuremberg trials in 1945.

And before that, false flag attacks have been proven to be true as far back as the the 1700s.

storker

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

This "conspiracy denier" (good one by the way, nice try ) believes that even democratic western governments are capable of all kinds of shady activities, but there's a vast gulf between believing that someone might be capable of <bad thing> and declaring categorically that they actually did <bad thing>. For conspiracy theorists, however, there is no difference between the possibility that something might have happened and proof that it did happen, which is why so much of their "evidence" is really just innuendo, and why their arguments fail even the most basic application of logic, leaving us with what amounts to no more than a more sinister version of the "nudge-nudge, wink-wink, say no more" sketch.

ohnonotgmail

Drumpot wrote: »

The reason most drugs are illegal around the world has little to do with their effect on people. It was driven by the head of the FBI in the early 20th century with racism and religious dogma (drugs are bad) at its core. Google “Harry Anslinger” for more information. He travelled around the world putting countries under pressure to make certain drugs illegal. Not many people know this.

This has led to a ridiculous mindset people have aboit drugs (drugs are bad and people who take them are bad) which in turn fuels the underground nature of drugs and is why there are drug wars.

The conspiracy I suppose is that people have been convinced there is some moral or ethical principle guiding the laws that govern the illegal drug trade.

I think it’s very true that many people lack the capacity for critical thinking. Certainly when it comes to an accepted norm “drugs are bad and people who take or sell them are bad”. So why are people who take or sell these drugs bad? Because it’s illegal? But why is it illegal?

Once you start exploring the history behind why drugs are illegal the whole argument falls apart.

Anslinger wasn't head of the FBI. He was head of the Bureau of Narcotics which is the DEA today. The rest of it is right though. America still has a strong puritan streak.

Drumpot

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Anslinger wasn't head of the FBI. He was head of the Bureau of Narcotics which is the DEA today. The rest of it is right though. America still has a strong puritan streak.

Apologies, typo on my part. It’s savage how influential he was in global laws on drugs. I only heard of him reading a book on mental health and addiction. He should get a posthumous sentence for crimes against Humanity. I’d say his crusade has killed and damaged more then Hitler over the years. And nobody knows of him! It’s nuts.

ohnonotgmail

Drumpot wrote: »

Apologies, typo on my part. It’s savage how influential he was in global laws on drugs. I only heard of him reading a book on mental health and addiction. He should get a posthumous sentence for crimes against Humanity. I’d say his crusade has killed and damaged more then Hitler over the years. And nobody knows of him! It’s nuts.

it is indeed. the "war on drugs" has been a complete failure and caused more misery than it could have ever prevented.

ShatterAlan

The Nal wrote: »

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.

I don't use social media.

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

WTC 7 was on fire for most of the day, fire chiefs were repeatedly claiming that it was close to collapse. The BBC report literally had WTC on fire in the background. So yes it was a mistake. We know this, because they later confirmed it was a mistake (many media outlets confirmed mistakes on the day)

Again, just because you can't "believe" something doesn't automatically mean something else happened. At any point feel free to explain what alternatively happened.



This is false.



A passport was found, many other perishable items were found, there has never been a plausible alternative explanation, so yes it's quite possibly the truth.



They weren't almost immediately identified, that's false. Perhaps there was e.g. engravings on the ring. Forensic scientists are incredible, in a massive operation, for example, they identified all the passengers and crew (and terrorists) from remains from the plane that smashed into the Pentagon.

A passport was reported to have having been found.


Chlorine gas canisters were reported to have been found on beds in a property in Syria. There were even pictures of these canisters lying on beds allegedly having been dropped from the air and slamming through the roof. These pictures were a schoolboy howler of fakery but because the event was reported do you just still believe that it transpired the way it was reported?


Are you going to ask me your ad nauseum question "they were found there and we're told they were dropped from the sky...hence that MUST be what happened. If not then what could have caused them to be there?"

And "perhaps there were engravings on the ring"? haha.

"Forensic scientists are amazing."

How many wedding rings have you ever seen that have the owner's name, address and social security number etched into them? It would want to be a fairly big ring to allowed that much engraving on the inside.

So we have a passport that can jump out of somebody's jacket pocket before that jacket and the wearer are immolated INSIDE an airplane. The passport can make it through the fuselage before the fuselage enters the building (either that of the passport came out the other side of the building surfing on a wave of burning jet fuel), but we also have a wedding ring that came off it's wearer's finger before that finger and body were incinerated and was found in hundreds of thousands of tons of rubble. Yes?

haha.

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

A passport was reported to have having been found.

It was found and exists. Photographs of it were made. Other passports, identity cards, and passengers effects were also discovered. Many are on display in the 9/11 museum. This stuff was examined and handled by investigators.

Do you have information that the passport did not exist? if yes, please present. If no, you have utterly no basis to randomly doubt that.

Do you have information that the passport was fabricated? if yes, then present it. If no, again, no basis.

Syria.

Has nothing to do with a passport being found on 9/11.

Are you going to ask me your ad nauseum question "they were found there and we're told they were dropped from the sky...hence that MUST be what happened. If not then what could have caused them to be there?"

What is the counter-explanation with evidence? if you have none, then there is nothing. Again, you cannot seem to grasp this elementary concept.

ShatterAlan

storker wrote: »

This "conspiracy denier" (good one by the way, nice try ) believes that even democratic western governments are capable of all kinds of shady activities, but there's a vast gulf between believing that someone might be capable of <bad thing> and declaring categorically that they actually did <bad thing>. For conspiracy theorists, however, there is no difference between the possibility that something might have happened and proof that it did happen, which is why so much of their "evidence" is really just innuendo, and why their arguments fail even the most basic application of logic, leaving us with what amounts to no more than a more sinister version of the "nudge-nudge, wink-wink, say no more" sketch.

That is obviously the problem.


Lack of proof doesn't automatically validate the official narrative. It merely leaves the question of doubt hanging in the wind. A flawed or whitewashed investigation serves to disguise, camouflage, conceal or even destroy proof that might otherwise expose the official narrative. Evidence and proof were suppressed for decades after Bloody Sunday. Witness statements were ignored. Blatant lies were tabled as facts. Yes the conspiracy theorists couldn't prove that the Parachute Regiment murdered 14 unarmed innocent civilians yet that is exaclty what happened. Outside of what they saw with their own eyes because they were discredited, silenced, threatened, ignored what could they do?



The same with The Guildford 4 and the Birmingham 6.

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It was found and exists. Photographs of it were made. Other passports, identity cards, and passengers effects were also discovered. Many are on display in the 9/11 museum. This stuff was examined and handled by investigators.

Do you have information that the passport did not exist? if yes, please present. If no, you have utterly no basis to randomly doubt that.

Do you have information that the passport was fabricated? if yes, then present it. If no, again, no basis.



Has nothing to do with a passport being found on 9/11.



What is the counter-explanation with evidence? if you have none, then there is nothing. Again, you cannot seem to grasp this elementary concept.

You were told it was found and exists. Yet the circumstances surrounding it's existence (and wedding rings) border on the supernatural.


And do I have information that the passport did not exist? You're now resorting to me having to prove a negative?

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

You were told it was found and exists. Yet the circumstances surrounding it's existence (and wedding rings) border on the supernatural.

This sole issue here is your incredulity, which is baseless

And do I have information that the passport did not exist? You're now resorting to me having to prove a negative?

It's quite straightforward

Theory A: Passport survived the plane impacts.
Evidence for: The physical passport itself, handed to a police officer near Vessey street, verified by multiple investigators. Other passenger/crew/hijackers personal perishable effects surviving all four different impacts, verified by multiple investigators. Is corroborated by the other evidence and timeline
Evidence against: You can't believe it

Theory B: ?
Evidence for: ?
Evidence against: ?

Fill in theory B. If there is nothing, there is nothing to discuss.

This was all described to you at the start, very simply, but instead you persisted down this absurd path. You still have a strange view that somehow something can't have happened if you can't believe it. Argument from incredulity fallacy.

To demonstrate, here are common 9/11 truther talking points, see if you can address them:

1. How did a complete novice hijacker Hani Hanjour pilot a Boeing 737 airliner in a an extreme maneuver (which pilots have said is impossible) and hit the Pentagon almost perfectly?

2. How did WTC 7, a 47 steel framed skyscraper, just "collapse" from office fires, it wasn't struck by a plane, there's no history of any skyscraper of that size falling to fire, how did that happen?

3. Larry Silverstein, the lease-holder of the WTC towers, who stood to make billions from insurance on the buildings, was caught saying "pull it" just before WTC 7 collapsed, how do you explain that?

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

This sole issue here is your incredulity, which is baseless



It's quite straightforward

Theory A: Passport survived the plane impacts.
Evidence for: The physical passport itself, handed to a police officer near Vessey street, verified by multiple investigators. Other passenger/crew/hijackers personal perishable effects surviving all four different impacts, verified by multiple investigators. Is corroborated by the other evidence and timeline
Evidence against: You can't believe it

Theory B: ?
Evidence for: ?
Evidence against: ?

Fill in theory B. If there is nothing, there is nothing to discuss.

This was all described to you at the start, very simply, but instead you persisted down this absurd path. You still have a strange view that somehow something can't have happened if you can't believe it. Argument from incredulity fallacy.

To demonstrate, here are common 9/11 truther talking points, see if you can address them:

1. How did a complete novice hijacker Hani Hanjour pilot a Boeing 737 airliner in a an extreme maneuver (which pilots have said is impossible) and hit the Pentagon almost perfectly?

2. How did WTC 7, a 47 steel framed skyscraper, just "collapse" from office fires, it wasn't struck by a plane, there's no history of any skyscraper of that size falling to fire, how did that happen?

3. Larry Silverstein, the lease-holder of the WTC towers, who stood to make billions from insurance on the buildings, was caught saying "pull it" just before WTC 7 collapsed, how do you explain that?

It's all quite straightforward.


We'll go back to the deadman


Theory A:


A man is found face down with a knife in his back. The conclusion is suicide. This is corroborated by multiple investigators.


In fact it goes further. Another dead man is found. This one is found strangled to death even though he's paraplegic, i.e both arms are paralysed. Again the consensus among investigators is suicide.


Evidence against: You can't believe it.


Theory B:


Evidence for?
Evidence against?


Fill in Theory B. If there is nothing then there is nothing to discuss.

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

It's all quite straightforward.


We'll go back to the deadman

Strawman argument.

How did a hijackers passport end up on the street?

If you are going to suggest someone planted it there, cool, provide the evidence.
If you are going to suggest the investigation faked it all, cool, provide the evidence.
Whatever you suggest, provide evidence, but if you don't have evidence..

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

If you can't provide a credible explanation, but you just "can't believe it", that, as mentioned from the very beginning is argument from incredulity.

King Mob

ShatterAlan wrote: »

You were told it was found and exists. Yet the circumstances surrounding it's existence (and wedding rings) border on the supernatural.

You keep claiming this, yet we've explained that this is not the case.
Many items were found. Was their survival "bordering on the supernatural" too?

The answer is obviously not, hence why you keep dodging the point.
Many items survived, which indicates that it's possible for the passport to survive.
It's simply a matter of it being more likely than you are insisting that it is.

And again in the absence of any alternative explanation, which you are unable to give, we have to conclude that the passport did survive and there's nothing to suggest a conspiracy.
Same with the BBC report.
Same with pretty much every claim about 9/11 conspiracies if you examine them at all.

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Strawman argument.

How did a hijackers passport end up on the street?

If you are going to suggest someone planted it there, cool, provide the evidence.
If you are going to suggest the investigation faked it all, cool, provide the evidence.
Whatever you suggest, provide evidence, but if you don't have evidence..

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

If you can't provide a credible explanation, but you just "can't believe it", that, as mentioned from the very beginning is argument from incredulity.

Because I don't have to provide evidence.


If you tell me that when you die you go to a place called heaven and spend the rest of eternity farting around in a white dress playing a harp, or that a guy can rise from the dead or turn water into wine....I don't have to provide evidence to the contrary as you are so stubbornly insist is my obligation.


You might believe that somebody can walk on water. I don't. It's not up to me to prove they can't.


You might believe that a piece of cardboard and a ring can survive the aforementioned circumstances. Again the onus is not on me to prove that they can't.



Sawing a woman in half in a stage is what you will see. I will say it's an illusion. You will say "She was cut in half! How else can you explain it? Is there some conspiracy afoot? I know what I saw, damnit!"


Now you will harken back to the "Just because I don't believe it, doesn't mean it didn't happen." And if that's what you want to stick to then fine. That's your right and your prerogative.


I'm told that a man with a beard and a staff parted the Red Sea. I'm told that statues in Ireland moved. I'm told that a woman can get pregnant by an "angel" According to you I need to provide an alternative explanation to this gibberish.


Not my job.

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Strawman argument.

How did a hijackers passport end up on the street?

If you are going to suggest someone planted it there, cool, provide the evidence.
If you are going to suggest the investigation faked it all, cool, provide the evidence.
Whatever you suggest, provide evidence, but if you don't have evidence..

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

If you can't provide a credible explanation, but you just "can't believe it", that, as mentioned from the very beginning is argument from incredulity.

And 500 years ago I probably couldn't provide an explanation as to why a woman, once a month became extremely emotional, irritable, maybe even sometimes violent. The fact that I couldn't provide a credible explanation regarding her suffering hormonal surges as a result of her menstrual cycle is NOT a validation for someone who puts forward the idea that she's a witch or possessed by demonic forces and if I can't provide an alternative to this nonsense then indeed this nonsense must be the "only game in town".

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Because I don't have to provide evidence.

Actually you do. You are claiming the passport can't have come from the plane that impacted the building, then where did it come from? why would you believe something you have utterly no basis or evidence for?

Again, this whole thing stems from the fact that you think it can't have happened simply because you can't believe it. I'm sorry but that's not evidence of anything but your own personal mental limitations.

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

And 500 years ago

Avoid using strawmen arguments and just address the subject. You keep trying to rationalise an irrational position.

King Mob

ShatterAlan wrote: »

And 500 years ago I probably couldn't provide an explanation as to why a woman, once a month became extremely emotional, irritable, maybe even sometimes violent. The fact that I couldn't provide a credible explanation regarding her suffering hormonal surges as a result of her menstrual cycle is NOT a validation for someone who puts forward the idea that she's a witch or possessed by demonic forces and if I can't provide an alternative to this nonsense then indeed this nonsense must be the "only game in town".

But the issue is that we're pointing to a lot of other examples of items that survived, which indicates that it's possible for the passport to survive. We're not making it up out of whole cloth.

You keep avoiding the issue caused by these other items, because I suspect you realise you can't discount them and you can't suggest they are all fake because such a thing is ridiculous.

The other items exist and survived.
So the passport could have also survived.
It is not "bordering on the supernatural".
This explanation is possible, demonstrable and evidenced.

The alternative that is also possible, demonstrable and evidenced is...?

So far it seems to be nothing at all...

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Actually you do. You are claiming the passport can't have come from the plane that impacted the building, then where did it come from? why would you believe something you have utterly no basis or evidence for?

Again, this whole thing stems from the fact that you think it can't have happened simply because you can't believe it. I'm sorry but that's not evidence of anything but your own personal mental limitations.

But I don't believe it.


It defies the laws of physics.



You can wave a wand and claim the rabbit has disappeared. This defies the laws of physics. I may not be able to explain how you did what you did but me not believing your assertions that you are a wizard or a magician, and if I can't provide an explanation as to what you did lends no veracity to what you claim. The fact that I can't prove the rabbit is stuffed down your arse or that someone whisked it away when I wasn't looking doesn't negate my doubt or copperfasten your assertion.

King Mob

ShatterAlan wrote: »

But I don't believe it.


It defies the laws of physics.

But it doesn't defy the laws of physics as shown by all the other items that survive.
Did all of those also "defy the laws of physics"?

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

But I don't believe it.


It defies the laws of physics.

No it doesn't defy the laws of physics, if defies your interpretation of them. If you took an identical experiment and flew a plane into a building and pieces of personal effects survived would you believe it then? The answer is no, because it happened 4 times on one day, with perishable items from each flight being discovered, and you still "cant believe it".

Just because you personally can't process something doesn't mean it can't or didn't happen.

storker

ShatterAlan wrote: »

That is obviously the problem.

Lack of proof doesn't automatically validate the official narrative.

Yes it does, because the evidence - the real evidence, that is, not "evidence" hallucinated or manufactured by "Truthers", supports it. The evidence doesn't support the 9/11 inside job conspiracy theory.

It merely leaves the question of doubt hanging in the wind.

Only in the minds of those who wish to sow it.

A flawed or whitewashed investigation serves to disguise, camouflage, conceal or even destroy proof that might otherwise expose the official narrative.

Indeed it can, but crying "conspiracy!" just because the outcome isn't what one wants carries no more weight than trump claiming Biden votes being faked because he couldn't handle the fact that he'd lost.

Evidence and proof were suppressed for decades after Bloody Sunday. Witness statements were ignored. Blatant lies were tabled as facts. Yes the conspiracy theorists couldn't prove that the Parachute Regiment murdered 14 unarmed innocent civilians yet that is exaclty what happened. Outside of what they saw with their own eyes because they were discredited, silenced, threatened, ignored what could they do?

The same with The Guildford 4 and the Birmingham 6.

I think attempting to elevate 9/11 conspiracy theories to a similar status as the Guildford Four, Birmingham Six or Bloody Sunday cases is a seriously cheap shot. As I recall, in both cases there was enough real evidence in the public domain to warrant questioning the official line, certainly in the case of the Bloody Sunday shootings. There is no such evidence to support the 9/11 conspiracy theories.

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Actually you do. You are claiming the passport can't have come from the plane that impacted the building, then where did it come from? why would you believe something you have utterly no basis or evidence for?

Again, this whole thing stems from the fact that you think it can't have happened simply because you can't believe it. I'm sorry but that's not evidence of anything but your own personal mental limitations.

NO,


I said I can't believe that a passport can have endured what you claim it endured.


I don't believe that the German chauffeur abducted and killed and was subsequently executed (later exxonerated) for the murder of the Lindhburgh baby.


If you and I were to go back then you would still be thrashing around demanding that I provide proof that ought to otherwise prove the official (wrong) narrative incorrect and that I should prove my point, otherwise, accept your story.

King Mob

ShatterAlan wrote: »

NO,

I said I can't believe that a passport can have endured what you claim it endured.
.

Then are all the other items likewise impossible.
You keep avoiding this point.

You keep avoiding this point because you don't believe all of those items are faked. You know such a thing is ridiculous. But you also know it cuts the legs out from under your claim as if they can survive so can a passport.

So rather that admit this you avoid and dodge and ignore.

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

I said I can't believe that a passport can have endured what you claim it endured.

It's not my claim, it was found on the sidewalk. Along with many other similar items, the same thing occurred across multiple crash sites. You can't explain that and your only argument (repeatedly) is that you can't believe it. Other posters have already given examples of people who deny something because they "can't believe it" and why it's a moot argument.