Are there any credible conspiracy theories?

Unicorn Milk Latte · 28-07-2021 9:56pm

How about a scientific approach: evaluating conspiracy theories, based on data gathered from actual conspiracies?

With 'actual conspiracies' I mean things like politicians and business people conspiring - like offering and accepting bribes - and being caught, and brought to court, with data driven proof of their interaction, like financial records, or phone records.

Something like this:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/27/cardinal-denies-financial-crimes-in-biggest-ever-vatican-trial

Looking at things like:

how many people were involved
how long was this going on
personalities, professions, background of the people involved
what was the gain (financial, political)
who profited
how were they found out

So, if, hypothetically, there are no actual conspiracies that involve hundreds of people, that have no clear gain, that have people of integrity conspiring and keeping quiet, that could indicate that conspiracy theories claiming these things are not a description of anything going on in reality.

An extension of that could also be to look at sites like Facebook or conspiracy video sites, and see how many of their conspiracy theories resulted in something tangible, like arrests, convictions, changes in legislation, etc.

ShatterAlan · 25-08-2021 3:50am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117088924#Comment_117088924

Why would it be a problem for Russians to land Russian troops onto and in and around Russian Naval base?

The Black Sea port of Sevastopol was and IS a miulitary naval base for the Russian blue fleet. Surely if you have a problem with Russian soldiers arriving therein then why weren't you crying about Russian warships, frigates, submarines, etc. accessing the port for years?

You also talk of a fake referendum. Pew and Gallup saw no impropriety in the referendum. The Crimeans have been calling for a a referendum to become part of Russia again since 1991/2

In conclusion, if the majority of Novirussian Crimeans were annexed against their will, then where is the resistance to this foreign "gun to the head" occupation? I don't see any "free Crimea movement" or the usual suspects landing boatloads of arms to a seperatist movement. I don't see any clamours for help such as "free us all from the Russian tyranny and let us go back to being second class citizens, ruled by Kiev"

All I see is a beautiful area with people enjoying their lives. Have a look. And then the odd moron claiming that the Tatars are being marginalised.

Dohnjoe · 25-08-2021 9:45am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117800185#Comment_117800185

Pay attention to what was written. "Russia landed troops in Crimea to guard over key installations, Putin said they weren't Russian, then later admitted on national TV that they were.". They seized the whole region not just Sevastopol. That was illegal, and the referendum was illegitimate. As such it wasn't internationally recognised by most countries. Online polling sites like Pew and Gallop aren't election observers. Many in Crimea wanted to join Russia but that doesn't validate Russia illegally annexing Crimea and holding a false vote.

If the Irish army decided to rush into Northern Ireland, take key installations, then hold a "referendum" in 3 weeks that offered Irish rule or greater autonomy from English rule - it wouldn't be internationally recognised either, regardless of how many Irish supported it.

The whole thing was masterfully done by the Kremlin. Conspiracy theorists love to hate "the West", in line with their tiresome narrative that "the good guys are bad" and as such feel they have to constantly defend leaders like Putin. Which is hilariously ironic considering he's a corrupt authoritarian leader who is unfathomably rich on a state salary, has been in power for 20 years, oversees a vast state media propaganda apparatus, and regularly has opposition politicians (and others) jailed, poisoned and murdered.

TomSweeney · 16-09-2021 10:19pm

Building 7 never sits well with me ...

Just the way it fell, using linear motion maths, the roof basically fell in the time it would take to fall if there was nothing underneath it ... like a controlled demolition.

Cheerful S · 25-12-2021 2:34am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117800682#Comment_117800682

Russian trained naval/ground troops inside Crimea long before the Maidan revolution. . Putin, of course, was happy to take the area of Crimea back for Russia, Let us not be stupid here, indigenous population gave the green men soldiers flowers and chocolates, so it is very hard to call this an invasion, strictest sense. .. There wasn’t even an actual insurgency here against Russia. The insurgency was against the newly formed government in Kyiv.

Ukraine has a shared blood history with Russia. You hardly expect them to just sit back and watch Nato loyalists take over the country and turn the weapons against them. Nato is there to destroy Russia in case of war. It’s hardly a friendly group. So actually no surprise Russia would mobilize for war Ukraine requested to join Nato here. We have to respect national security concerns even it is a hostile country, our leaders don't like and hypocrisy, when the Soviet Union placed nukes in Cuba area hundreds of miles away from the border of the US, the military in the US planned ground invasion and air attack to take them out. Russia not going to stand by here and let Ukraine be a Nato country at the side of its borders.

Didn't illegally do it, they held an election and the people of Crimea picked a side.. What way do you think the vote would have ended up different with EU inspectors there? It's silly to call it a false vote.

For Example gave, in Northern Ireland people the majority decided to remain with the UK. It is an accepted vote. Crimea is a small state so what’s the difference, the majority decided the preferred Russian Kremlin rulers to the EU. Propaganda on Western TV sets never going to change viewpoints of people living in Crimea. These people loyalty to Russia, accept it, and move on. Sending weapons to Ukraine and pushing them to join Nato hardly the right to stop an Invasion. Russia could easily takeover Ukraine at any time in the last decade, they decided to keep the status quo for peace.

Cheerful S · 25-12-2021 3:12am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117901691#Comment_117901691

The event is very strange. Seven was announced to have fallen before it did so on TV. Most people don't think much of it, and its true people feared the building was going to collapse, but NIST official response and excuse about the collapse is a girder located on the 12th floor slipped off its seat-bearing between the time 5.19 pm and 5.20 pm- other structural support failures took place and, the rest of it fell down. It wasn't even a reported damaged section of the building contributed here to bring it down. least according to NIST. Fact is the claim is an Isolated, extremely rare trigger event took place an event that was never reported before in fires in buildings of this height, and NIST stands by it this theory today. There is no possible way anyone could have predicted this single isolated failure event ahead of time on 9/11. This is why people wonder about the announcement and who gave the information to the news!!

If this one single girder does not come off the seat there is no collapse at all (end of debate) following NIST views about the collapse. This is why in my opinion AE911truth has valid reasons to be concerned and question the narrative. Based on logical sound science accumulated over decades it's not possible this girder could have slipped from its seat. It's been proven beyond all doubt they lied multiple times about the construction anyway, so how does the theory work in practice??

Dohnjoe · 27-12-2021 12:03pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118371689#Comment_118371689

The BBC made a reporting mistake, like many live reports did on the day.

No one can produce any credible alternative regarding 9/11, that's because there isn't one. Same with Sandy Hook, Boston bombing, 7/7, etc. It's always the same, a bunch of individuals claiming "something else" happened, but completely unable to support or even explain what that something is.

King Mob · 27-12-2021 12:16pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118377302#Comment_118377302

The BBC thing is a perfect example.

No conspiracy theorist has ever been able to explain the alternative here. Whenever they're asked they do everything in their power to avoid acknowledging the question. They'll ignore, abuse, cry, run away. They won't directly answer the question.

I'm always curious why they do this. But will never get an answer for that either.

Dohnjoe · 27-12-2021 12:35pm

This is how it works for modern "popular" conspiracy theories:

An event happens. A certain type of individual sees coverage of the event and decides that it's "implausible" or "suspicious" to them, therefore some sort of conspiracy must be involved. That decision is cemented as a belief despite little direct evidence of any conspiracy itself. Characteristically there's no interest in the conspiracy or any details of it. They retroactively attack/discredit facts surrounding the event in order to hint that "something else happened".

To see it in action, just go to any popular conspiracy forum after a large event.

King Mob · 27-12-2021 12:49pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118377413#Comment_118377413

I think the process is more like:

A certain individual wants there to be a conspiracy theory.

That person sees conspiracy coverage on the internet.

That persona accepts that the conspiracy is unerringly true.

Dohnjoe · 27-12-2021 1:34pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118377460#Comment_118377460

Indeed and there'll often be a pattern of it

On top of that, if you want to know about something, you'll go seek out proper information on it, expertise. The very last place someone would go to find genuine information is a conspiracy forum or site. They are seeking out conspiracy stuff, and it's not like they don't know they are:

"I'm really interested in the 1969 moon landings and craft used, I'll just check out this conspiracy forum to find out more about it"

storker · 27-12-2021 1:48pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117800682#Comment_117800682

@Dohnjoe "The whole thing was masterfully done by the Kremlin. Conspiracy theorists love to hate "the West", in line with their tiresome narrative that "the good guys are bad" and as such feel they have to constantly defend leaders like Putin. Which is hilariously ironic considering he's a corrupt authoritarian leader who is unfathomably rich on a state salary, has been in power for 20 years, oversees a vast state media propaganda apparatus, and regularly has opposition politicians (and others) jailed, poisoned and murdered."

And as far as the CT community goes, it's a case of "move along, nothing to see here..." 😁

Cheerful S · 27-12-2021 5:36pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118377302#Comment_118377302

An educated person, hopefully, will understand the information contained?

https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/momentum/Lesson-2/The-Law-of-Action-Reaction-%28Revisited%29

Building Seven collapse broke the law of action and reaction here. There are no exceptions, always will be collisions and interactions with construction objects slowing the fall. The path is never clear during a natural collapse of floors due to fire. The fact there is no pushback across the width of the building from one side to next across 8 floors, is plenty of evidence, this was not a natural event. Each to the own what the choose to believe.

NIST is well aware of the law and why freefall is a problem.

NIST

Sunder: “[A] free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.... What the analysis shows...is that same time it took for the structural model to come down...is 5.4 seconds. It’s about 1.5 seconds, or roughly 40 percent, more time for that free fall to happen. And that is not at all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case.”

NIST spokesperson Sunder even admits here in this statement that freefall can't be because there was structural resistance provided in their model. The cover-up later smoke and mirrors. NIST is well aware there is never a clear path during a natural collapse.

27-12-2021 6:11pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118378418#Comment_118378418

Thats definitely interesting. For me, Building 7 and the BBC report is just too on the nose. Imagine the amount of people who would have to be involved to keep that secret between people who worked there, the emergency services to a news agency. The pre-planning etc.. I did think originally that it was a bit strange or it might have even been brought down to stop a domino effect but kept secret for insurance reasons etc... but after working in TV for some time, my mind changed on this. Reporters at the time would have been listening to radio conversations to get as much info as possible for information gathering. My personal feeling was somebody picked up a radio conversation warning about a possible collapse of building seven which was then misheard. Then reported.....

King Mob · 27-12-2021 6:15pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118378418#Comment_118378418

So leaving aside the fact this has been debunked and explained to you why it's not true. Let's pretend it is true.

What's the plausible alternative for why there was free fall of the building?

For what you claim to be true to happen, it requires that every single support in that building (or over 8 floors) has to be removed all at once all at the same time. The only way to do this is to simultaneously uses explosives of every support.

If you don't do this, then free fall is impossible according to you and your primary school level of physics.

An educated person will understand why your alternative is not credible or reasonable.

My alternative is that most conspiracy theorists and Cheerful in particular are just wrong about their physics claims.

Cheerful S · 27-12-2021 6:47pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118378518#Comment_118378518

Thanks for the post. I don’t claim the BBC report is a conspiracy. Twin towers fell that day, so there was a tendency to believe another building could come down due to fire among people in the area. Event is not what it seems, so i am open all scenarios that someone planted the seed the building would fall, so it look less suspicious?

How seven actually collapsed on this day, when a plane never hit it. Many people are looking at how and why for decades.

One column failure cannot cause a freefall scenario. For this to happen every column interior and perimeter, 84 in total, would have to go almost at the same time. These columns are not in one area, the spread across the span of the building. If you watch videos, you see the building motionless, even when the penthouse collapsed, then almost suddenly it drops. It is now in freefall.

NIST was convinced there was no freefall in Aug 2008, the final draft conference they held. Truther measured freefall having occurred since he was a Physics teacher (knew his stuff) he was able to get a question asked during a conference call. All captured on video by the way.

This was part of the reply.

[A] free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.... What the analysis shows...is that same time it took for the structural model to come down...is 5.4 seconds. It’s about 1.5 seconds, or roughly 40 percent, more time for that free fall to happen. And that is not at all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case.”

NIST said the collapse model computer engineered by them showed no freefall!! debunkers never understand why this is an issue still dont! NIST even says the slower time is expected because there was structural resistance provided underneath. This all makes sense, explaining a collapse of a building due to fire!!!.

The reality is freefall occurred. For freefall to happen there be no structural resistance to slow the fall. Only can be explained by a demolition job.,

Dohnjoe · 28-12-2021 1:34am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118378418#Comment_118378418

You've done this multiple times already, where you start the whole 9/11 thing from the beginning and go through all the same denial/incredulity.

It's really simple, did something else happen? If yes, what was it. Do you still think secret Nazi's were involved, if yes, how?

Dohnjoe · 28-12-2021 1:42am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118378518#Comment_118378518

Indeed, plenty of things were misreported on the day, it's live news.

As for the BBC being "forewarned", why would the perpetrators of a secret inside job call up a foreign news agency and tell them the precise time a building was going to fall, what motive could they possibly have for needlessly exposing their plan? All the news agencies would report a falling building anyway, so why on earth would a news agency need to be told? It serves utterly no purpose.

28-12-2021 1:47am

i don’t really understand the obsession with building 7. What are people saying, that the conspirators went out of their way to demolish three buildings, but only remembered to fly planes into two?

Dohnjoe · 28-12-2021 2:02am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118380508#Comment_118380508

It wasn't hit by a plane, how did a 47 story steel framed building just fall so uniformly from tiny office fires? plenty of skyscrapers and tall buildings have gone on fire, how come none fell? There are thousands of architects and engineers who have openly signed up to the fact that they don't believe it fell due to fire, where are the thousands who have signed up to say otherwise? A recent study poured doubt on previous investigations.

I can produce mountains of the above, endlessly, and if you can't explain it to me (I can subjectively reject any of your explanations anyway) then you've "lost the debate" meaning it must have fallen due to a conspiracy I never have to explain. This is why truthers obsess over WTC 7.