Are there any credible conspiracy theories?

King Mob

ShatterAlan wrote: »

I don't know.

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

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

ShatterAlan wrote: »

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

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

ShatterAlan wrote: »

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

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

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

ShatterAlan

dresden8 wrote: »

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

Off the top of my head.

Edit: Except they're not theories.

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


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

King Mob

ShatterAlan wrote: »

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


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

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

ShatterAlan

King Mob wrote: »

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


Again, what other explanation is there?

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

ShatterAlan

King Mob wrote: »

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

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


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


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

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

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


And that just shows that you are playing games.

King Mob

ShatterAlan wrote: »

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

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

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


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

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

ShatterAlan

King Mob wrote: »

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

You and your "strawmen" again.


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

King Mob

ShatterAlan wrote: »

No it's not.

Then what other explanations are there?

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

King Mob

ShatterAlan wrote: »

You and your "strawmen" again.


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

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

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

The Nal

ShatterAlan wrote: »

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


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

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

The real world lies somewhere in between.

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

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.

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."