Are there any credible conspiracy theories?

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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

I think, DJ, you've forgotten what a strawman is. And it certainly wasn't that to which I alluded.

King Mob

And even if we do accept Alan's arguement that it was impossible for the passport to survive, it doesn't support the idea of the conspiracy theory.

At beast it just shows that the official story isn't correct and the explanation for the passport's existence is unknown.

For the incident to support the conspiracy, you have to purpose an explanation for how it would support the theory. For example: "it was planted there for X reason".

Alan has claimed that the passport incident shows there was a conspiracy. (It was his number one go-to pick for an example of why the conspiracy theory was true)
Yet Alan won't propose such an alternative. He won't even hint at it.
I suspect it's because he can't support his preferred alternative on any level. He can't provide any evidence for it, can't provide any reasoning behind it.

It's the same for the BBC incident. Even if the explanation we've pointed to is impossible it still requires an alternative to actively support the idea of a conspiracy. But few conspiracy theorists can or want to provide that alternative cause any alternative is going to be silly and unsupportable.

The same goes for pretty much anytime a conspiracy theory relies on this type of argument.

Dohnjoe

King Mob wrote: »

And even if we do accept Alan's arguement that it was impossible for the passport to survive, it doesn't support the idea of the conspiracy theory.

At beast it just shows that the official story isn't correct and the explanation for the passport's existence is unknown.

For the incident to support the conspiracy, you have to purpose an explanation for how it would support the theory. For example: "it was planted there for X reason".

Alan has claimed that the passport incident shows there was a conspiracy. (It was his number one go-to pick for an example of why the conspiracy theory was true)
Yet Alan won't propose such an alternative. He won't even hint at it.
I suspect it's because he can't support his preferred alternative on any level. He can't provide any evidence for it, can't provide any reasoning behind it.

It's the same for the BBC incident. Even if the explanation we've pointed to is impossible it still requires an alternative to actively support the idea of a conspiracy. But few conspiracy theorists can or want to provide that alternative cause any alternative is going to be silly and unsupportable.

The same goes for pretty much anytime a conspiracy theory relies on this type of argument.

Indeed, it's how most of these types of conspiracy theories function.

Can't explain this, therefore conspiracy.
Can't believe that, therefore conspiracy.
Can't understand this, therefore conspiracy.

It's a technique of conjuring a conspiracy where there is none, simply by not understanding, not believing or not getting the facts.

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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.

Well then perhaps we ought to conduct an experiment. A simulation as it were.


A passport....maybe one of your expired ones. Failing that we can substitute with a small notebook. We'll laminate one page with a picture behind it.


Step 2. We pick a jacket or a backpack (these similar items can probably be sourced looking at the CCTV footage of what the lads on the plane were wearing as they were filmed going through.)


Step 3. We put the passport inside a bag or jacket and wrap it round a mannequin.


Step 4. We put the mannequin inside a metal container and surround it with kerosene tanks and reservoirs.


Step 5. We hammer our metal container against a structure at 300kmph and we get it right until it goes into the structure and we ensure that our kerosene ignites.


Step 6. We scramble around the ground to find the paper notebook. It should be outside the jacket, off the mannequin, outside the metal box.


Step 7. If not.....we try again.

King Mob

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Well then perhaps we ought to conduct an experiment. A simulation as it were.

Why you've already been shown example of other items from the flights surviving.
You've also been show examples of similar items also surviving other unconnected instances.
It's already been shown to be possible.

Why propose an experiment that doesn't make sense is based on silly strawman arguments and you've no interest in actually conducting?

Sounds more like you're dodging and deflecting from the points you can't address.

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Well then perhaps we ought to conduct an experiment. A simulation as it were.


A passport....maybe one of your expired ones. Failing that we can substitute with a small notebook. We'll laminate one page with a picture behind it.


Step 2. We pick a jacket or a backpack (these similar items can probably be sourced looking at the CCTV footage of what the lads on the plane were wearing as they were filmed going through.)


Step 3. We put the passport inside a bag or jacket and wrap it round a mannequin.


Step 4. We put the mannequin inside a metal container and surround it with kerosene tanks and reservoirs.


Step 5. We hammer our metal container against a structure at 300kmph and we get it right until it goes into the structure and we ensure that our kerosene ignites.


Step 6. We scramble around the ground to find the paper notebook. It should be outside the jacket, off the mannequin, outside the metal box.


Step 7. If not.....we try again.

No one needs to. Perishable items survived at the crash sites on 9/11.



Events in the world don't revolve around your understanding of them, you don't seem to be able to be able acknowledge that or understand it.

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Indeed, it's how most of these types of conspiracy theories function.

Can't explain this, therefore conspiracy.
Can't believe that, therefore conspiracy.
Can't understand this, therefore conspiracy.

It's a technique of conjuring a conspiracy where there is none, simply by not understanding, not believing or not getting the facts.

You believe everything that is reported to you.


Do you believe what is not possible?


https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/douma-syria-opcw-chemical-weapons-chlorine-gas-video-conspiracy-theory-russia-a8927116.html


....just because it's reported to you.


If your coveted news outlets can report to you about a magic passport and the Lord of the Wedding Rings, and you believe it without a shred of doubt because they would never bluff you out, what's your take on the same people who tried to lie to you about Syria?

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

You believe everything that is reported to you.

No I don't. Please stop attributing false positions to me.

If your coveted news outlets can report to you about a magic passport and the Lord of the Wedding Rings, and you believe it without a shred of doubt because they would never bluff you out, what's your take on the same people who tried to lie to you about Syria?

Again, stop doing this thanks.

King Mob

ShatterAlan wrote: »

You believe everything that is reported to you.


Do you believe what is not possible?

But it is possible as the other items surviving show that it is possible.

Are you claiming all the other items also could not have possibly survived?
You've been asked this many times and dodged each time.
This is most likely because you know claiming such a thing is ridiculous.

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

No I don't. Please stop attributing false positions to me.



Again, stop doing this thanks.

Well then why don't we just concentrate on a passport and a wedding ring that you believe can be traced so amazingly to the owner because forensics scientists are so skilled and because it may have had engravings on it leading them to the owner.


I'd love to hear the theories of these forensics experts as to how a ring can be found and not attached to the charred and rotting corpse of somebody.


The ring jumped out of the plane too? Came off the finger of the wearer? Shook hands with the magic passport and said "see you in the rubble. Missus X took me off her anular finger just prior to impact. Her name is engraved inside."

King Mob

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Well then why don't we just concentrate on a passport and a wedding ring that you believe can be traced so amazingly to the owner because forensics scientists are so skilled and because it may have had engravings on it leading them to the owner.


I'd love to hear the theories of these forensics experts as to how a ring can be found and not attached to the charred and rotting corpse of somebody.


The ring jumped out of the plane too? Came off the finger of the wearer? Shook hands with the magic passport and said "see you in the rubble. Missus X took me off her anular finger just prior to impact. Her name is engraved inside."

Again are you saying these things are faked?
If not then they obviously survived. You keep dodging this very simple fact dude. It's getting a bit embarrassing and making your silly strawmen look even more pathetic and desperate.

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Indeed, it's how most of these types of conspiracy theories function.

Can't explain this, therefore conspiracy.
Can't believe that, therefore conspiracy.
Can't understand this, therefore conspiracy.

It's a technique of conjuring a conspiracy where there is none, simply by not understanding, not believing or not getting the facts.

What's funny is that they will argue this line but then also suggest alternatives that are actually insane and impossible.
Some fav examples is the thought that it was impossible for the WTC buildings to fall due to fire, but it was possible for them to fall due to silent explosives installed by a team of a dozen guys over a weekend.

Or when one guy was arguing that the moon landings must have been fake cause it was impossible to deal with the heat. At the same time they argued that there was a second secret space program to develop and launch a robotic rover to retrieve samples from the moon.

Impossible only seems to apply to things they don't want to be true.

storker

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Can't explain this, therefore conspiracy.
Can't believe that, therefore conspiracy.
Can't understand this, therefore conspiracy.

Note the historical pattern...

Can't explain this, therefore the gods!
Can't explain this, therefore witchcraft!
Can't explain this, therefore aliens!

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Well then why don't we just concentrate on a passport and a wedding ring that you believe can be traced so amazingly to the owner because forensics scientists are so skilled and because it may have had engravings on it leading them to the owner.


I'd love to hear the theories of these forensics experts as to how a ring can be found and not attached to the charred and rotting corpse of somebody.

You are just going round and round in circles. You, personally, cannot believe something, therefore it "can't have happened". That's not evidence of anything but your personal limits. It's contradicted by the physical evidence.

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Argument from incredulity

You are just going round and round in circles. You, personally, cannot believe something, therefore it "can't have happened". That's not evidence of anything but your personal limits. It's contradicted by the physical evidence.

You're the one who's going round in circles. I don't believe that a passport or a ring can jump out of a jacket / off a finger, through the fuselage of a blazing aircraft crashing through and building and be found intact in the street below and that the ring's owner can be determined.


You believe this fantastic story. Don't get pissed off with me just because I don't believe it. Not my fault that you believe in phenomena that border on miracles.

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

I don't believe

Is not an argument.

Not only that, but you don't seem to understand why in the first place.

To use an analogy. You meet a friend who cannot believe the world is round (there are actually a surprising amount of people who hold this view). You show this person all the usual evidence. Nope, they deny it all, they see the ground is flat, they can't believe we're on a spinning globe, that seems absurd to them.

Is them not believing it evidence that the world isn't round? No. It's completely irrelevant. And no one has to convince that person either.

In regards to 9/11 if someone "can't believe" that one of the hijackers flew the plane into the Pentagon, it's not evidence the plane didn't hit the Pentagon. Someone "can't believe" that WTC 7 collapsed from office fires? that's not evidence that it didn't. Someone can't believe all those items survived from the planes? not evidence it didn't.

These aren't complicated concepts

King Mob

ShatterAlan wrote: »

You're the one who's going round in circles. I don't believe that a passport or a ring can jump out of a jacket / off a finger, through the fuselage of a blazing aircraft crashing through and building and be found intact in the street below and that the ring's owner can be determined.


You believe this fantastic story. Don't get pissed off with me just because I don't believe it. Not my fault that you believe in phenomena that border on miracles.

But this is a bad argument on a few levels.
First, you are presenting a strawman. A particularly silly and childish one at that.
No one is suggesting that anything "jumped" out of anyhting.

Secondly, you've been shown repeatedly many items that were recovered. You constantly ignore these and refuse to address them. This is because you can't address them.
You've been running away from them since the start of the thread.

And finally, there is no alternative.
You can't supply one. We've never seen any.
Therefore the only explanation is that they survived.

You keep avoiding this points, hence you're going around in circles.
If you were honest and answered things directly, the discussion would move forward.
But if you did these things, it would be less likely you'd still believe in the conspiracy.

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Is not an argument.

Not only that, but you don't seem to understand why in the first place.

To use an analogy. You meet a friend who cannot believe the world is round (there are actually a surprising amount of people who hold this view). You show this person all the usual evidence. Nope, they deny it all, they see the ground is flat, they can't believe we're on a spinning globe, that seems absurd to them.

Is them not believing it evidence that the world isn't round? No. It's completely irrelevant. And no one has to convince that person either.

In regards to 9/11 if someone "can't believe" that one of the hijackers flew the plane into the Pentagon, it's not evidence the plane didn't hit the Pentagon. Someone "can't believe" that WTC 7 collapsed from office fires? that's not evidence that it didn't. Someone can't believe all those items survived from the planes? not evidence it didn't.

These aren't complicated concepts

I don't believe in God. You tell me he/she exists. I still don't believe you. Is that an argument from incredulity.


I show you a dead cat lying on the side of the road. I tell you that aliens dropped the cat's carcass there. You don't believe me. Is that an argument from incredulity?



Look the cat's corpse is right there!!! How else did it get there if the aliens didn't put him there?

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Is not an argument.

Not only that, but you don't seem to understand why in the first place.

To use an analogy. You meet a friend who cannot believe the world is round (there are actually a surprising amount of people who hold this view). You show this person all the usual evidence. Nope, they deny it all, they see the ground is flat, they can't believe we're on a spinning globe, that seems absurd to them.

Is them not believing it evidence that the world isn't round? No. It's completely irrelevant. And no one has to convince that person either.

In regards to 9/11 if someone "can't believe" that one of the hijackers flew the plane into the Pentagon, it's not evidence the plane didn't hit the Pentagon. Someone "can't believe" that WTC 7 collapsed from office fires? that's not evidence that it didn't. Someone can't believe all those items survived from the planes? not evidence it didn't.

These aren't complicated concepts

And not believing that the guy with the knife in his back committed suicide is not evidence that he didn't either, according to you. You can believe that fantasy if you want. I don't.

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

I don't believe in God. You tell me he/she exists. I still don't believe you. Is that an argument from incredulity.

It's not.

I show you a dead cat lying on the side of the road. I tell you that aliens dropped the cat's carcass there. You don't believe me. Is that an argument from incredulity?

No

Look the cat's corpse is right there!!! How else did it get there if the aliens didn't put him there?

No. As mentioned, it's been explained and you simply don't seem to understand.

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's not.



No



No. As mentioned, it's been explained and you simply don't seem to understand.

It hasn't been explained to me. You are trying to maintain that just because someone doesn't believe the story about the cat doesn't mean that the story is untrue. And that is complete and utter bullshit.

I fail to see the difference between not believing the story about the cat and not believing the story about the passport or the rig and not believeing the story about the knife guy.

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

It hasn't been explained to me.

It has been explained to you, multiple times. If you can't get it, that's your issue.

To demonstrate using an example (yet again)

Two people are debating over how the Titanic sank.

1. The first person claims it sank due to an iceberg and they point to all the evidence it sank to an iceberg.
2. The second person claims it didn't sink due to an iceberg because they can't believe it.

The second person is engaging in a logical fallacy, meaning their argument is irrelevant. It gets worse, the first person has presented a theory backed by evidence, the second person hasn't. The second person has no logical argument, at all.

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It has been explained to you, multiple times. If you can't get it, that's your issue.

To demonstrate using an example (yet again)

Two people are debating over how the Titanic sank.

1. The first person claims it sank due to an iceberg and they point to all the evidence it sank to an iceberg.
2. The second person claims it didn't sink due to an iceberg because they can't believe it.

The second person is engaging in a logical fallacy, meaning their argument is irrelevant. It gets worse, the first person has presented a theory backed by evidence, the second person hasn't. The second person has no logical argument, at all.

There is a BIG difference between providing evidence of how something happened and someone still not believing it, and simply telling someone how something happened and them not believing it because to them it is not believable or possible.


You're trying damn hard to muddy the waters here but no matter how hard you try it's not working and I get the sense that that is irritating you.

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

There is a BIG difference between providing evidence of how something happened and someone still not believing it, and simply telling someone how something happened and them not believing it because to them it is not believable or possible.

Goobledegook

Investigators discovered personal effects from the planes. That's a fact.

You are doubting this, so, apart from personal incredulity (which is all you've engaged in so far), what's your basis for asserting that information isn't true? Don't bring up Syria or your world views or strawmen. Answer that question directly. Provide the basis.

Keep in mind this is physical evidence, as part of the investigation. You can physically go to NY and physically see some of these items.

King Mob

ShatterAlan wrote: »

There is a BIG difference between providing evidence of how something happened and someone still not believing it, and simply telling someone how something happened and them not believing it because to them it is not believable or possible.
.

But you've been shown it is believable and possible as you've been shown examples of many items surviving the crash. You've been shown examples of other items surviving other crashes.
You ignore this every time.

Why do you keep ignoring it?

I think it's because you realise it's an issue you can't address and thus are pretending you can't see it and hoping it will go away.

Why are you so determined to ignore things to preserve your belief in your conspiracy theory?

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Goobledegook

Investigators discovered personal effects from the planes. That's a fact.

You are doubting this, so, apart from personal incredulity (which is all you've engaged in so far), what's your basis for asserting that information isn't true? Don't bring up Syria or your world views or strawmen. Answer that question directly. Provide the basis.

Keep in mind this is physical evidence, as part of the investigation. You can physically go to NY and physically see some of these items.

And I have physical evidence of the alien cat. Look, he's lying right there but you still don't believe the story despite the weight of evidence. Hundreds of people have seen the cat.


And you tell me not to bring up Syria as an example yet it's ok for you to bring up the titanic as an example.

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

And I have physical evidence of the alien cat.

If you can't address a simple question without going off on these silly tangents, there's no debate here

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

If you can't address a simple question without going off on these silly tangents, there's no debate here

It's not a tangent at all. You're trying to say that the passport and the ring passed through a flaming fireball of a plane crash conflagration and landed on the pavement and the reason I have to believe this is because these items were found.


It's exactly the same as me saying that the cat's body was placed on the ground by aliens and you have to believe this because the cat's body was found.

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

You're trying to say that the passport and the ring passed through a flaming fireball of a plane crash conflagration

Again, this is not coming from me personally. I'm not the source of this information. It's mind-blowing that this has to be explained to you.

These are the facts, perishable stuff physically survived from the plane impacts. It physically exists, and some of it is on display in NY.

What is your basis, apart from incredulity, that this stuff doesn't exist and that the investigation was wrong about this?