Are there any credible conspiracy theories?

King Mob wrote: »

And chemtrail believers will just state that that isn't true.
And that still leaves the patterns you can't explain.

And you guess?
That's all you have to dismiss the whole conspiracy theory?
Touch hypocritical there.

Well I'm not a meteorologist so I have to guess, don't I? And why is that hypocritical?


What's YOUR basis for dismissing conspiracies? Are you a ballistics expert? A coroner? A virologist? A toxicologist? A structural engineer? A materials scientist?



Thousands of scientists dispute the notion of chemtrails. Now if someone came along with evidence that these chemicals were in fact discharged from planes and it was proven to be in the air we breathe and people undeniably tested positive to having inhaled/ingested these chemicals and the effects it had upon them then I'd give it a bit more attention but as of yet I haven't seen any such evidence.


Thousands of scientists on the IPCC confirm the existence of climate change so I'm naturally going to pay a bit more deference to what they have to say. They make a strong point.


I know what you're going to say next. You're going to dredge up the fact that I said scientists sell their souls all the time hence I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth.

Sometimes they just keep their mouths shut because they feel they are pissing into the wind. Any chemist will tell you that it's impossible to make a bomb with household liquids and creams and blow up a passenger airliner. You would need a veritable workshop with burners, distillers, measuring equipment, etc. Get all that into the cabin toilet. You're also going to need about 30 or 40 hours to prepare this compound and if you're good enough and haven't attracted any attention to the stench of what you are up to you might be lucky enough to concoct something that might singe your eyebrows. Chemists know this but they can't be arsed trying to explain it because people blindly choose to believe you can mix Ballygowan and a bottle of L'Oreal and bingo you've got a deadly bomb. I don't see trains and buses and crowded bars being obliterated day in and day out by terrorists armed with baby food bombs.


A lot of the time the whole discussion around conspiracies boils down to one side doubting the official narrative and the other side resorting to "well if it didn't happen this way then tell us what really happened?" This is a tool used to ridicule the doubting Thomases.



If I'm presented with the spectacle of a guy face down on the ground, dead, with a knife embedded in his back between his shoulder blades and you tell me he committed suicide I'm going to tell you that I don't believe you. If you next start screeching "well you tell me what happened then, smart-arse" I'm going to tell you that it's not up to me to tell you what happened. That's not going to make your story any more believable.



I don't believe paper passports can survive fireballs. I don't have to tell you how they can.


Anyway I've probably rambled a bit there so I'll leave it at that.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Investigators build a case from the ground up. Consensus of witnesses, physical evidence, CCTV, forensic evidence, electronic evidence, expert testimony, etc

Conspiracy theorists attack all that and try to cast doubt on it to hint at a conspiracy they rarely detail.

You didn't say that. You said that asking questions was an attempt to cast doubt on a narrative and hint at an alternative explanation, i.e. a conspiracy.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I didn't put those together.

Flat-earthers tend to have a lot in common with other conspiracy theorists. There's a common theme in the logic, belief types and way they process information.



The questions usually aren't genuine, it's a technique of casting doubt on an event to hint at some conspiracy. They are trying to find questions that can't be answered or explained to their satisfaction (or illogical standards) therefore some conspiracy must have taken place.

As an example: Holocaust deniers aren't really "curious" about the Holocaust, they are attempting to find questions that are deliberately difficult to answer or explain in order to cast doubt on that entire tract of history, so that they can dispute (round down) the number of Jews killed to satisfy their antisemitism/prejudice.

You are lumping them together. You are using crap like lizard people to make anyone who asks a legitimate question about say, the claim that Assad attacked civilians with chlorine gas, sound like a crackpot.


That's what you do whether directly or indirectly. You also pepper your posts with plenty of references to quacks, morons, wackjobs, etc. when most of us are simply discussing plausible conspiracies like the fact that no evidence from John Kerry was shown that truly proved Russia shot down MH-17 or that Maduro has embezzled billions from the Venezuela exchequer.

King Mob wrote: »

Because you are dismissing a conspiracy theory out of hand despite not looking into it at all based on pretty much nothing.
At the same time you are telling folks like myself for not believing the conspiracy theories you believe in, falling claiming it's because we haven't looked into them.
That's the hypocracy.

It's pretty simple. Conspiracy theories like chemtrails, 9/11 and JFK all follow similar patterns that use the same kind of poor logic and fallacious arguments.
For example, you are using an argument from incredulity to support your belief in the JFK and 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Often times these arguments are also long debunked in the case of your specific one for 9/11.
And equally often those arguments don't actually make sense beyond a surface level.

These are all common signs in conspiracy theories and they are very easy to spot. And it almost always means there's not much to the conspiracy.


Yes you are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Thousands of scientists and experts all disagree with you about your beliefs in 9/11 and JFK.
Are they all part of the conspiracy?
If so then all the experts against chemtrails are also in on the conspiracy.
Every argument and point you are making against chemtrails and other conspiracies you don't believe can be used against the ones you do.
Every point you use to defend your conspiracy theories can be used to defend the ones you do believe.

It is hypocritical.

Now you're just trolling me. What the fcuk is wrong with you? I'm not dismissing chemtrails based on nothing. I already told you that I saw no evidence to support the theory so am not going to entertain it. As for Lizard People....that's just plain stupid. Are you going to call me a hypocrite for not delving deeper into the possibility that some people are reptiles underneath living human tissue?



And you are completely wrong when you lump chemtrails and lizard people in with 9/11 and JFK. If you took the time to examine your own flawed logic you might notice the fallacy. 9/11 and JFK are people questioning the official narrative because they see holes, anomalies and contradictions in it. Chemtrails and Lizard people are things that people say happen/exist without out any logical proof.
There's a massive difference.



I see ZERO evidence of the existence of god or an afterlife. None. A theist is of course going to ask me why I'm saying there is no god......this is where he gets it wrong just like you have gotten it so spectacularly wrong. I never said there was no god, merely that I see no convincing evidence.
Likewise with chemtrails. It's possible that planes are spewing out chemicals but I see no evidence of it so am not going to spend my life trying to get to the bottom of it. As for lizard people...am I dismissing something stupid out of hand because it's stupid and physically impossible? I'm not go to pay much attention to a group of people who claim to have seen an army of leprechauns riding flying unicorns across the sky either.





Give me a break. Try your little games on some else because I'm not going to be drawn into this childishness.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

If you are referring to 9/11, that's a perfect example of argument from incredulity. The passport did survive the plane impacts (not just that, but other passports, identity cards and perishable items survived)

But in your mind, "it's impossible", despite it being a fact, therefore it "can't have happened".

Can you explain how a passport can make it outside of someone backpack or jacket during an explosion?

You've go a wallet in your back pocket. In it are cards, and money. You are in an airliner inside the cabin. In the inside pocket of your jacket is your passport. The plane you are travelling on slams into a building and penetrates deep inside with a collossal explosion of jet fuel that is apparently hot enough to cause the steel supports of the building to fail and collapse. Of course at this temperature and the resultant explosion your body is incinerated. Jacket, jeans, shoes, wallet, the lot are immolated in an inferno of 2000 degrees yet the paper passport and plastic ID cards make it out of your vaporised jacket and wallet intact?


Forgive me for having the temerity to doubt such a laughable scenario.


You say something as ridiculous is a fact. Why do you say it's a fact? Even the newscaster on the BBC on the day were calling the claims a joke.


Maybe you should try an experiment. Maybe get an action man doll and put a little passport inside his uniform. Then put him inside his plastic tank. Then wrap that tanks in a petrol soaked towel with more petrol inside the tank, light it and hurl it at a wall so the whole thing ignites then show us the little passport magically hop from inside the uniform (which was incinerated along with action man) and hop from inside the blazing tank and land intact on the ground.



Keep doing it until you get it right.

King Mob wrote: »

Leaving aside your dishonest strawman, what's the conspiracy explanation.

If the passport can't have survived the explosion, how did it get there?
There's no other possible explanation.

How did it get there?

Is this a wind-up? Piece of advice, don't ever go to a magic show or if you do don't swear blindly to your mates that women can be sawn in half.


Are you being serious now or continuing with your games?
If I tell you that something physically impossible occurred like I've turned tin into gold or water into wine and someone comes along and says "bullsh1t! that's impossible" are you going to say "Well if it's impossible how did he do it? It must be true. There's no other explanation." SERIOUSLY?

Try a little deductive reasoning.

I mentioned before about a hypothetical body on the floor with a knife in his back and the explanation being that he committed suicide. Are you just going to say "Well what else could have happened? There's no other explanation." Of course there's another fucking explanation. It's impossible for someone to stab themselves to death between the shoulder blades so maybe you might want to rule out that scenario and try and come up with other possibilities or are you completely incapable of doing so?

"When you've eliminated the impossible, whatevr remains however improbable must be the truth" -- Sherlock Holmes

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's an explosion, stuff gets blown out, not everything is "vaporised"

Among items discovered intact were seat covers, identity cards, passports, perishable items, luggage, even a paper flight itinerary survived

Here is a more detailed explanation - http://www.911myths.com/html/passport_recovered.html



It's laughable to you because you are incredulous about it. You can't "imagine it" therefore it couldn't have happened. That's your evidence.

This notion you have is contradicted by the fact that this stuff survived and is documented



Because it is a fact. Here are some of the items which survived:



The below was recovered from Flight 93 which hit the ground almost vertically at high speed resulting in a massive fireball





Was watching the BBC and other channels on the day - source for this?



You've just demonstrated a perfect example of argument from incredulity. You personally can't believe something, so it's according to you it's impossible.

That website also mentions that a wedding was recovered. :pac:


What happened to the finger, hand and body that was wearing the ring?

King Mob wrote: »

Lol how would they have left the plane before it entered the building?

OK, when DID they leave the plane?

King Mob wrote: »

But the believers in chemtrails have tons of what they believe is evidence. Have you not looked at it?



Unfortunately, that is exactly what chemtrail believers do.
It's also exactly what Holocaust deniers claim they do.


Not really, as you believe the 9/11 conspiracy, you have to believe in the notion of silent explosive.

But I've seen no evidence that JFK was killed by a second gunman or that 9/11 was a hoax.
And unlike you, I've looked into both of these things.


It's physically impossible for the towers in 9/11 to have been secretly demolished.

Stay on topic. You're trying to deflect, muddy the waters and turn this into a circular discussion.

King Mob wrote: »

Not before the plane entered the building. There's no reason why they would leave the plane before entering the building. I'm not sure why you would suggest such a thing.
They most likely left the plane as it was breaking up while it was crashing into the building.

You keep avoiding the question.

Are those items fake, yes or no?

The question of whether they are fake or not is besides the point. It's something that you have tried to ascertain and I'm not going to be drawn on it.


So when exactly did these items go from being inside the airplane cabin to being outside of it? You seem to be the expert so surely you won't mind giving the account of these personal effects.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I am not sure what you mean by leaving the plane before it entered the building? As the airliners hit the buildings (or the ground in Shanksville PA) the explosions would have ejected surviving material outwards (anything not incinerated by the fireball or trapped within the surviving structure in the case of the buildings)



To the best of my knowledge many of the perishables were discovered outside of the buildings. Basically just laying on the ground, e.g. the below seat cover



An American Airlines life vest



A lot of debris and items were ejected in a radius around the sites





This is an example of something that was found inside the rubble, from a passenger on Flight 11



Here are other items recovered from people who were working inside the Twin Towers, almost fully intact condition





Some of the recovered items were/are on display at the 9/11 memorial museum

Were the items on the ground BEFORE the building came down or were the found in the rubble AFTER the buildings came down. I'm just trying to determine at what point they went from being inside the plane to being outside of it.