Are there any credible conspiracy theories?

Dohnjoe

King Mob wrote: »

I think this is why flat earth has been making a bit of a come back of late.
This tactic works really well for them because a lot of their points are actually more difficult to explain and debunk than most people expect.

There are some things they point to that to fully explain you need to have a good grasp of things like optics, geometry and physics.
While for conspiracy theories like 9/11 or the Moon Hoax, it's a little easier to just fact check basic stuff and point out incorrect claims.

It's a common technique.

1. Pick a conspiracy
2. Find something complex, strange or technical
3. Bait others into explaining that
4. "Don't get" the explanation
5. It must be a conspiracy
6. Repeat steps 2 to 6

(Bonus) 7. Never detail the conspiracy itself or even show any interest in it

I'd say that's pretty much used in 99% of classic conspiracy theory threads I've come across

partyguinness

I tend to find that most conspiracy theories are based the fundamentally flawed premise that "we" as humans are far smarter than we actually are.

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's a common technique.

1. Pick a conspiracy
2. Find something complex, strange or technical
3. Bait others into explaining that
4. Don't get the explanation

Alternatively:
4a: Get the explanation, but ignore it.

The Nal

partyguinness wrote: »

I tend to find that most conspiracy theories are based the fundamentally flawed premise that "we" as humans are far smarter than we actually are.

And that governments et al are so competent that they can 1. pull these thikngs off and 2. keep all these things secret.

Dohnjoe

The Nal wrote: »

And that governments et al are so competent that they can 1. pull these thikngs off and 2. keep all these things secret.

Yet at the same time also be fantastically incompetent and leave blatant "clues" and easter eggs that only online detectives can seem to find. Let's advertise for "crisis actors" on craigslist.

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yet at the same time also be fantastically incompetent and leave blatant "clues" and easter eggs that only online detectives can seem to find. Let's advertise for "crisis actors" on craigslist.

Or "Let's post all of our evil plans on twitter."

Or Larry Silverstein confessing to the entire 9/11 plot on national TV...

Dohnjoe

King Mob wrote: »

Or "Let's post all of our evil plans on twitter."

Or Larry Silverstein confessing to the entire 9/11 plot on national TV...

Or the BBC being told that WTC 7 was going to collapse at a specific time and going along with it, while the building was obviously still standing in the background.

"Hi is this the BBC?"

-"Yes.."

"You need to report that WTC 7 is going to collapse at 3:47 pm"

-"Uh, what? why?"

Click

-"Oh well, better report it, Bob you need to say the building has come down, yes yes I know it's still up, but we have to do this, for some reason"

partyguinness

That's how I rebut the missile in the Pentagon:

"So basically, you are saying that persons or many unknown persons managed to stage a plane crash by getting hold of mangled plane wreckage, haul it through Arlington County (pop. 200k) in broad daylight with no witnesses or CCTV footage and managed all this without any of the 23000 Pentagon workers noticing. Oh, and simultaneously unknown persons actioned the launch of a military grade missile into the building. Oh, and managed to make a Boeing 757 with 68 people on board just disappear. All of this has been hushed up since.

Cool story bro’.”

Funny that I never get a response to that.

King Mob

partyguinness wrote: »

That's how I rebut the missile in the Pentagon:

"So basically, you are saying that persons or many unknown persons managed to stage a plane crash by getting hold of mangled plane wreckage, haul it through Arlington County (pop. 200k) in broad daylight with no witnesses or CCTV footage and managed all this without any of the 23000 Pentagon workers noticing. Oh, and simultaneously unknown persons actioned the launch of a military grade missile into the building. Oh, and managed to make a Boeing 757 with 68 people on board just disappear. All of this has been hushed up since.

Cool story bro’.”

Funny that I never get a response to that.

The most recent believers to argue this version of the conspiracy were contenting that the real Flight 77 flew over the Pentagon and away while something else (a missile or another plane, they never clarified) hit the building.

partyguinness

King Mob wrote: »

The most recent believers to argue this version of the conspiracy were contenting that the real Flight 77 flew over the Pentagon and away while something else (a missile or another plane, they never clarified) hit the building.

or the "There is no way an amateur pilot had the skill to hit such a specific target"


You had a determined pilot and clearly he had the ability.

storker

King Mob wrote: »

Or "Let's post all of our evil plans on twitter."

Or more recently..."Let's put a reference to our top secret evil plans into a song."

Dohnjoe

partyguinness wrote: »

or the "There is no way an amateur pilot had the skill to hit such a specific target"


You had a determined pilot and clearly he had the ability.

And a Dutch conspiracy TV show actually tested this, they put a novice pilot with about the same experience as the hijacker on a proper Boeing simulator and he completed the maneuver and hit the Pentagon 3 times out of 3.

King Mob

partyguinness wrote: »

or the "There is no way an amateur pilot had the skill to hit such a specific target"

You had a determined pilot and clearly he had the ability.

And how do we know he's a bad pilot?
Well cause his flight school, which is also apparently a CIA/Mossad front, said he was a bad pilot.
Why did they say this? Dunno.
Why did they not find a better pilot or train him better? Dunno.

There's branches like this you can run down at every level in some conspiracy theories.

What baffles me is why theorists ignore this stuff when it's obvious and even when it's pointed out to them.

storker

King Mob wrote: »

What baffles me is why theorists ignore this stuff when it's obvious and even when it's pointed out to them.

It doesn't baffle me at all. They're like creationists. They want/need to believe in it. Facts are irrelevant and sometimes downright inconvenient, so they're just ignored.

tdf7187

Operation Gladio and Clockwork Orange.

Both real, there have been documentaries from reputable broadcasters about them including the BBC re Clockwork Orange.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clockwork_Orange_(plot)

ShatterAlan

The Nal wrote: »

The finger got pulverised. Gold/Silver is tougher than skin and flesh. I don't really get the confusion?

The passport could've been on a seat and got blown out a window. Just like the thousands of other documents and artifacts they found in the rubble.

:pac:


The aluminium fuselage inside which the ring was got pulverised too, no?


So if a body can be pulverisied / vaporised how can a paper passport survive such pulverisation?

ShatterAlan

storker wrote: »

Rare != impossible.

The circumstances of the 911 crash were pretty rare too, so other rare phenomena associated with the crash is hardly surprising.

But in admitting that documents can and do survive air crashes, you've just defeated your own argument, so we can drop that line of enquiry now. That just leaves the BBC fantasy, which has been pretty comprehensively dealt with.

Anything else in the shot locker?

You don't get to decide what discussion get halted. But you're perfectly free yourself to disengage.


When a plane blows up in mid-air it's OUTSIDE. It stands to reason that the bodies of the passengers and much of the luggage are going to be blown out of the hold and rain down to Earth.



When a plane crashes into the ground it's still OUTSIDE. The whole hting may burst into flames but I'm guessing that the fragmentation of the plane will cause certain things to be blown clear and not be consumed by fire.


The planes that hit the tower came apart INSIDE and most of the plane's structure and contents remained inside the buildings.

King Mob

ShatterAlan wrote: »

So if a body can be pulverisied / vaporised how can a paper passport survive such pulverisation?

Because a body is heavy and big. A passport is small and light.

ShatterAlan wrote: »

The planes that hit the tower came apart INSIDE and most of the plane's structure and contents remained inside the buildings.

Except for the contents that can be blown out the two giant holes during the planes explosion/fragmentation.

Again, this is evidentially what happened as we have a large amount of items that were recovered from the planes.

Again I'm not sure if this is another attempt at a very dishonest strawman or if this is because you genuinely believe this and you just don't understand what you're talking about.
You seem to understand that things can be blown clear from the fires in other crashes, but have some silly belief that this couldn't have happened in the towers despite the gaping holes in the buildings.
Why can't the items have been blown out of those holes?

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

So if a body can be pulverisied / vaporised how can a paper passport survive such pulverisation?

Dunno. Not every single thing was fully destroyed apparently. Perhaps some of the many rings and so on had human parts attached, don't know the exact nature of how each was found. What we do know is at least 200 rings were found in the rubble, and certain items (like those rings) were traced to their owners. Identification cards and even a paper itinerary were found (a piece of printed paper)

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

The planes that hit the tower came apart INSIDE and most of the plane's structure and contents remained inside the buildings.

Is your personal layman's opinion and is contradicted by the fact that the above didn't happen. How do you explain that this stuff survived?

Dohnjoe

Like a hamster wheel, straight back to:

I can't believe it, so it didn't happen
I can't understand it, so it didn't happen

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Like a hamster wheel, straight back to:

I can't believe it, so it didn't happen
I can't understand it, so it didn't happen

What's really annoying is that if he'd just answered the questions directly it wouldn't have taken us 12+ pages to establish that the reason he believe that it's impossible for the items to have survived is that he believes they all had to have stayed in the building.

But because conspiracy theory beliefs require that no questions should be asked, we couldn't take a straight route there.

Dohnjoe

King Mob wrote: »

What's really annoying is that if he'd just answered the questions directly it wouldn't have taken us 12+ pages to establish that the reason he believe that it's impossible for the items to have survived is that he believes they all had to have stayed in the building.

But because conspiracy theory beliefs require that no questions should be asked, we couldn't take a straight route there.

Simply watching the plane crash into the building we can see a huge amount of material ejected

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Simply watching the plane crash into the building we can see a huge amount of material ejected

Yup. That's probably why he didn't want to admit that was the issue because he understands how easily disprovable it is.

weisses

Reading over the last few pages i can see some quality circle jerking ..... Keep it up lads

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

Reading over the last few pages i can see some quality circle jerking ..... Keep it up lads

As a 911 truther, do you have anything to add?

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Reading over the last few pages i can see some quality circle jerking ..... Keep it up lads

Come by for the biannual personal swipes again?

Nothing to add or any attempt to address any of the topic at hand?
Any comment on the abject dishonesty we've seen in your fellow conspiracy theorists?

No? Just wanna moan about how mean we are for asking questions and pointing out that dishonesty?
Ok.
See you in a few months next time you get huffy.

Ted_YNWA

Can everyone tone down the outrage levels a notch. No need to be getting personal.

Dohnjoe

Demonstrated again and again, when it comes to "popular conspiracy theories", whether it's the moon landing, 9/11, Sandy hook, etc, the pattern is consistent:

• Lack of detailed conspiracy theory
• No credible evidence for the theory
• Contradicted by credible evidence
• Contradicted by expert consensus and proper investigation
• Conspiracy support reliant on pseudo-science, spurious information, isolated "experts", weak logic/reasoning

bunderoon

I can fully understand why someone would think that this was the alternative conspiracy (not the official conspiracy theory with hijackers with boxcutters). You have to remember that both are theories after all. None of us were involved first hand to say otherwise.

It was indeed a very strange and tragic day for a very long list of reasons, contradictions and coincidences. It's mind blowing stuff for those who are honest with themselves and have taken the time to really look at this.
And because of the above, I wouldn't call someone crazy for having doubts or questions. It's perfectly natural.

For those asking for proof, names involved etc or making claims for either 'side' are being silly and disingenuous. As I said, none of us here on the internet/message boards have any real proof for either theory.
Logically, everyone should look at the events before, during and afterwards and then see which theory stacks higher.
Also don't forget the old adage - Qui Bono (Who Benefits) and still does to this day.

Occam's razor vs the sheer number of circumstantial occurrences.

Have a good weekend all!!!