Are there any credible conspiracy theories?

Dohnjoe

sabat wrote: »

And have the photo page appear on that evening's news?

I believe it was initially misreported as Atta's passport, but not sure when it made the news, was it that evening? source?

Dohnjoe

To explain the two different mindsets when it comes to an event like 9/11 (or Sandy Hook, or the moon landing, or Boston bombing, etc)

Typically when a rational person looks at this event, they see the big picture, the multiple corroborating investigations, all the corroborating evidence, the timelines, everything. The fact that there's no credible alternative theory. Everything is taken in context.

However, when a "conspiracy theory" minded person looks at this type of event. They typically comb through it, actively searching for some aspect, no matter how small, that they don't understand or believe. If they find one (or more) and they don't like the explanation or don't understand it they decide it must all be a conspiracy. A conspiracy they often have no interest in detailing.

Online conspiracy videos use this technique. They can't detail a conspiracy which obviously didn't happen, but they can carefully frame information, use disinformation, and out of context information to manipulated their viewers into believing that "something fishy happened", to plant doubt in their heads. It's easy to fall for.

Hqrry113

Dohnjoe wrote: »

To explain the two different mindsets when it comes to an event like 9/11 (or Sandy Hook, or the moon landing, or Boston bombing, etc)

Typically when a rational person looks at this event, they see the big picture, the multiple corroborating investigations, all the corroborating evidence, the timelines, everything. The fact that there's no credible alternative theory. Everything is taken in context.

However, when a "conspiracy theory" minded person looks at this type of event. They typically comb through it, actively searching for some aspect, no matter how small, that they don't understand or believe. If they find one (or more) and they don't like the explanation or don't understand it they decide it must all be a conspiracy. A conspiracy they often have no interest in detailing.

Online conspiracy videos use this technique. They can't detail a conspiracy which obviously didn't happen, but they can carefully frame information, use disinformation, and out of context information to manipulated their viewers into believing that "something fishy happened", to plant doubt in their heads. It's easy to fall for.

I do agree with you that most of them kinds of conspiracies are ridiculous but there is a big difference in desperately trying to believe in a conspiracy because it's exciting and genuinely questioning an event.

Dohnjoe

Hqrry113 wrote: »

I do agree with you that most of them kinds of conspiracies are ridiculous but there is a big difference in desperately trying to believe in a conspiracy because it's exciting and genuinely questioning an event.

Indeed, but be careful, some mask their intentions. On the surface, they may state they are just "just asking questions" or seeking genuine debate, but the reality can be different. Holocaust deniers, for example, are notorious for this, and moderators on history forums have become very adept at spotting the red flags and tell-tale signs to discern between someone genuinely interested in history, and someone trying to deny it to fit a prejudiced narrative.

King Mob

Hqrry113 wrote: »

I do agree with you that most of them kinds of conspiracies are ridiculous but there is a big difference in desperately trying to believe in a conspiracy because it's exciting and genuinely questioning an event.

How can you tell the difference though?

Cause it was just argued that 9/11 was obviously a genuine theory, yet this seems to have been based on a completely false arguments.
At the same time, no one can seem to explain why Chemtrails deserve to be dismissed out of hand other than "I just don't believe it."

How do you personally decide between the good conspiracy theories and the false ones?

Hqrry113

King Mob wrote: »

How can you tell the difference though?

Cause it was just argued that 9/11 was obviously a genuine theory, yet this seems to have been based on a completely false arguments.
At the same time, no one can seem to explain why Chemtrails deserve to be dismissed out of hand other than "I just don't believe it."

How do you personally decide between the good conspiracy theories and the false ones?

For me logic is the main way I decide whether or not a theory is plausible.

By far the most plausible 9/11 conspiracy theory is the belief that 9/11 was an inside job by government officials as an agenda to have an excuse to attack Afghanistan and Iraq.

First off all why would the government go to such extreme lengths for this excuse? Would Saddam Hussein having chemical weapons not be excuse enough? Would they actually need to go to such drastic measures to justify an invasion? I really doubt it, if they really wanted to it wouldn't be hard to convince the public, people aren't really that hard to convince.


9/11 as an inside job is a theory that takes on many beliefs and personifies and justifies them through using the footage and accounts available. They appear believable and many believers display a belief bias, only accepting facts that fit into their personal beliefs of what truly happened. One could never truly convince a 9/11 theorist they are wrong because as evidence unsupportive of their ideas surface the more the theories shift towards disproving that evidence and rooting the theory even more into a scenario of an elaborate government coverup.

In terms of JFK, I find that to be extremely plausible, I don't have an exact theory on it, I just find the official story that there was this guy Oswald, who nobody knew anything about, who came out of nowhere and shot the president acting completely alone with no influence, motive or help from anyone else I find that story in my mind, beyond a reasonable doubt to be false.

I do believe that Oswald pulled the trigger but what I'm not so sure of is who pulled the strings.

King Mob

Hqrry113 wrote: »

For me logic is the main way I decide whether or not a theory is plausible.

By far the most plausible 9/11 conspiracy theory is the belief that 9/11 was an inside job.

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.

Hqrry113

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.

Did you not even read the whole reply?

I was explaining the difference between a plausible theory and a not plausible one using 9/11 as the example of a theory not being plausible I said it is the most plausible theory of all the conspiracies about 9/11 and I went on to explain why I don't believe it and dismiss it out of hand.

The Nal

Hqrry113 wrote: »

I do believe that Oswald pulled the trigger but what I'm not so sure of is who pulled the strings.

The Oswald story is very interesting in itself. He is arguable the most investigated criminal in recent history, to the point where we nearly know where he was and what he did every day for the preceding 18 months.

Nothing indicates a conspiracy unfortunately. Just an angry rejected man with something to prove.

Worth a watch

https://vimeo.com/150198102

King Mob

Hqrry113 wrote: »

Did you not even read the whole reply?

I was explaining the difference between a plausible theory and a not plausible one using 9/11 as the example of a theory not being plausible I said it is the most plausible theory of all the conspiracies about 9/11 and I went on to explain why I don't believe it and dismiss it out of hand.

Sorry, you're right. I did not read your post carefully or completely enough and misunderstood it.

Dohnjoe

Hqrry113 wrote: »

For me logic is the main way I decide whether or not a theory is plausible.

By far the most plausible 9/11 conspiracy theory is the belief that 9/11 was an inside job by government officials as an agenda to have an excuse to attack Afghanistan and Iraq.

Appeal to motive fallacy. Just because we can find a motive for something, doesn't mean the act was carried out.

There must be solid details of the act, credible supporting evidence of it and then measure that against all the evidence of the original theory.

Here's an example:

Motive: The US and USSR were locked on a race to the moon, the US wanted to get there first, so the theory is that they faked it.

Theory A) Man landed on the moon
Evidence: A lot, and from credible sources

Theory The moon landing was shot in a studio
Evidence: Next to none

Moon landing hoaxers rarely touch theory B, that's because they have no evidence for it. Instead they engage in endless denial of theory A, man landing on the moon, well, because it's easy. "I don't get it", "that doesn't make much sense" and so on is much easier than providing a proper counter-theory.

Finding a motive is only one aspect, demonstrating a theory based on it is entirely another.

Hqrry113

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Appeal to motive fallacy. Just because we can find a motive for something, doesn't mean the act was carried out.

There must be solid details of the act, credible supporting evidence of it and then measure that against all the evidence of the original theory.

Here's an example:

Motive: The US and USSR were locked on a race to the moon, the US wanted to get there first, so the theory is that they faked it.

Theory A) Man landed on the moon
Evidence: A lot, and from credible sources

Theory The moon landing was shot in a studio
Evidence: Next to none

Moon landing hoaxers rarely touch theory B, that's because they have no evidence for it. Instead they engage in endless denial of theory A, man landing on the moon, well, because it's easy. "I don't get it", "that doesn't make much sense" and so on is much easier than providing a proper counter-theory.

Finding a motive is only one aspect, demonstrating a theory based on it is entirely another.

I'm pretty sure you also didn't even read half the reply.

Dohnjoe

Hqrry113 wrote: »

I'm pretty sure you also didn't even read half the reply.

I was just picking up on the the first part (as a general point, not specifically directed at you). The rest I agree with, except for JFK.

There's a JFK thread, I suggest having a look, the Nal is pretty knowledgeable about it.

ShatterAlan

King Mob wrote: »

We also have the fact that he won't state whether or not the passport is faked.

I suspect that before this thread this is what he believed.
However now he is made aware of the other items and the fact the passport could have survived, he's in an awkward position.
If he claims that the passport must be faked he has to claim that ALL of the other items are faked.
But this is clearly ridiculous and he doesn't want to claim this.
He also cannot admit that the passport and other items aren't faked cause then there's nothing to support the conspiracy.

Why should I say whether or not it was faked? What's that got to do with anything?


Again all your trying to do is shift the onus off yourself in explaining an extremely unlike event by demanding I provide an alternative so that you can scoff.


I'm not being drawn on your game and you're the one who bangs on about strawman arguments. And calls people hypocrites for good measure.

King Mob

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Why should I say whether or not it was faked? What's that got to do with anything?
.

Why avoid it?

You believe that this "impossible" event indicated a conspiracy. The only way it can indicate a conspiracy is if it was faked.

But there's a problem since we also have many examples of other items that also survived.
So if your position is that the passport is faked, you have to then also believe that everything else was fake.
If you don't believe the other stuff is fake, then it's possible for the passport to survive, thus it does not support the idea of a conspiracy.

So which is it?
I think it's clear that you are avoiding this question because you can't answer it directly without undermining your position.

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Again all your trying to do is shift the onus off yourself in explaining an extremely unlike event by demanding I provide an alternative so that you can scoff.
.

But it's not an extremely unlikely event as theres a lot of examples of other things also surviving.
Also, what other possiblity is there beyond it just surviving?
You don't seem willing or able to suggest one and I can't think of one that makes any sense.

So regardless of the specifics, it must have just survived because that's evidently what happened. There isn't another explanation.

lalababa

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Diana conspiracy. Just had a quick read about it, and some evidence a Fiat hit the Mercedes. This was fresh paint that highly suspicious and clear evidence of a collison. When you can't find the driver and the car there's very little you can do to prove it was an murder plot.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Diana,_Princess_of_Wales,_conspiracy_theories

As if you are gonna ram a big Merc with a fiat uno...FFS!

McGinniesta

Yes.

The 911 commission report is nonsense.

McGinniesta

The Nal wrote: »

The Oswald story is very interesting in itself. He is arguable the most investigated criminal in recent history, to the point where we nearly know where he was and what he did every day for the preceding 18 months.

Nothing indicates a conspiracy unfortunately. Just an angry rejected man with something to prove.

Worth a watch

https://vimeo.com/150198102

Virtually everything about the case screams cover up.

sabat

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I believe it was initially misreported as Atta's passport, but not sure when it made the news, was it that evening? source?

I'm the source, I remember watching it. At a guess, I'd say someone from one of the agencies that had been tracking the hijackers leaked a copy of the passport to the TV station and in their rush to get the exclusive out they didn't think through the logic of the cover story. The passport itself was of course incinerated.

King Mob

sabat wrote: »

I'm the source, I remember watching it.

That's not how sourcing works.
Memory is faulty and conspiracy theorists often misremember and misreport things based on their memory alone

sabat wrote: »

At a guess, I'd say someone from one of the agencies that had been tracking the hijackers leaked a copy of the passport to the TV station and in their rush to get the exclusive out they didn't think through the logic of the cover story. The passport itself was of course incinerated.

Why would they do that in the first place?
Why would they be stupid enough to think that would be convincing if everyone knows it's impossible for the passport to survive?

Do you also believe that the other items recovered from the planes are similarly planted?

sabat

King Mob wrote: »

That's not how sourcing works.
Memory is faulty and conspiracy theorists often misremember and misreport things based on their memory alone

Ok, how about the official 9/11 report?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PENTTBOM

"One belonged to a hijacker on American Airlines flight 11. This is the passport of Satam al Suqami. A passerby picked it up and gave it to a NYPD detective shortly before the World Trade Center towers collapsed."

Does being "found" before lunch and making that evening's news fit with my memory, even if the whole story is implausible? I also recall that flight 93 was being reported as shot down for about an hour on Sky News before they changed it.

King Mob

sabat wrote: »

Ok, how about the official 9/11 report?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PENTTBOM

Does being "found" before lunch and making that evening's news fit with my memory, even if the whole story is implausible?

Does the report say that the passport was on that evening news?
If not, then no, it's not a source for your claims either.

You also seem to have missed my questions. Any chance you'd take a swing at answering them?

The Nal

McGinniesta wrote: »

Virtually everything about the case screams cover up.

Such as?

Dohnjoe

McGinniesta wrote: »

Yes.

The 911 commission report is nonsense.

In what way is it nonsense?

If it's incorrect, what really happened?

The Nal

Dohnjoe wrote: »

In what way is it nonsense?

If it's incorrect, what really happened?

Post truth beliefs don't require facts.

Dohnjoe

sabat wrote: »

Ok, how about the official 9/11 report?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PENTTBOM

"One belonged to a hijacker on American Airlines flight 11. This is the passport of Satam al Suqami. A passerby picked it up and gave it to a NYPD detective shortly before the World Trade Center towers collapsed."

Does being "found" before lunch and making that evening's news fit with my memory, even if the whole story is implausible?

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)

I also recall that flight 93 was being reported as shot down for about an hour on Sky News before they changed it.

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.

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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.

And it's likely that when they did so, they said things like "there are reports of..." etc. to indicate that the reports weren't yet confirmed.
So it wasn't that they were lying or even wrong, they we just stating that the reports or rumours existed. Regardless of whether those rumors are reports were accurate, this was true.

Arbitrary

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Sounds completely baseless and is covered in all the usual red flags.

I'm tempted to call in to them and ask them what they think of the thread.

The OP doesn't seem worried about being sued which is interesting.

Dohnjoe

Arbitrary wrote: »

I'm tempted to call in to them and ask them what they think of the thread.

The OP doesn't seem worried about being sued which is interesting.

OP is probably not all there if that post is anything to go by and this is why conspiracies can be harmful. Paranoid/delusional/insane people putting other people's personal details on the internet.

Arbitrary

Dohnjoe wrote: »

OP is probably not all there if that post is anything to go by and this is why conspiracies can be harmful. Paranoid/delusional/insane people putting other people's personal details on the internet.

Sure, agreed. Unless it's true of course. I took a look, OP has no history of posting on conspiracy theory forums. Doesn't quite fit the mould of paranoid delusional schizo. I got a chuckle out of it anyway.

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.