Depends on the theory - some (like that Putin was behind the 1999 Russian Apartment Bombings) seem quite reasonable - certainly worthy of proper investigation.
Others, such as the utterly baseless, risible and quite insulting attempts to say that 9/11 was an inside job, should be dismissed for the nonsense they are.
Originally posted by leafar: Maybe, but whats baseless about the idea of it being an inside job?
The complete and utter lack of evidence, the invention of 'inconsistencies', the exaggeration of coincidences and the shear implausibility of it being and inside job (just to categorise them nicely).
If you want evidence, just spend some time on google. Its everywhere, so to say that there is none is amazing. And what makes you think that its implausible? Do you think a guy in a cave is capable of doing it, and the president and others are not?
Originally posted by leafar: If you want evidence, just spend some time on google. Its everywhere, so to say that there is none is amazing. And what makes you think that its implausible? Do you think a guy in a cave is capable of doing it, and the president and others are not?
I have seen the 'evidence.' I have seen refutations, or, in many cases, been able to refute it myself. I have seen no plausible evidence.
The CT goes on about remote control planes, controlled explosions and so on and so on. How many people would this take - and none have come forward. Please, be serious.
The logistics of the attack were not that special, all it took was the sheer cheek to pull it off. All the stuff about controlled demolition and missiles is patent nonsense. I guess you could say that its plausible that it was simply CIA agents flying the planes, but there is not a shred of evidence for that. Terrorists being behind it is much more likely.
I just posted a link, which given that you replied in 4 mins, I know you didn't even look at. This link is a point-by-point rebuttal of all the bullshit in Loose Change, which constitutes most of the bullshit theories out there. Go educate yourself.
No im afraid that i didnt read your link, although i had a very quick glance. No offense, but if i followed up every link that you or others send me, id be here forever reading through it. Im just being practical. Besides, im talking about conspiracies in general. My point is that that government is obviously in the best position to do it. That doesnt mean that they did (although thats precisely what i think happened), but that its plausible. Do you really think that they couldnt have done it?
Originally posted by leafar: No im afraid that i didnt read your link, although i had a very quick glance. No offense, but if i followed up every link that you or others send me, id be here forever reading through it. Im just being practical. Besides, im talking about conspiracies in general. My point is that that government is obviously in the best position to do it. That doesnt mean that they did (although thats precisely what i think happened), but that its plausible. Do you really think that they couldnt have done it?
So you believe in the absurd 9/11 CTs because you are too lazy to read why they are absurd. How ironic.
No offence, but if CT nuts/global warming denialists/religious nuts ever posted a sensible link backing up their position I'd probably die from shock. You are being wilfully ignorant - I have educated myself on the matter yet you refuse to - why should I bother talking to you?
It is plausible (from a logistics and technical point of view) that the CIA flew those planes into the buildings. It is not realistic from a motive point of view, and less likely than the official line. It is not plausible (from all points of view) that there weren't any planes, or that there was a controlled demolition. The CT pushed by Loose Change is not in the least bit plausible and no, even the US military/secret service would not have had the resources necessary to carry it out.
Its also worth pointing out that if they had the resources to pull something like that off, it is just plain stupid to think that a couple of spotty teenagers with nothing better to do could uncover it all. Pretty much all the inconsistencies and coincidences are explainable, or else are inconclusive (and don't support conspiracy).
I have educated myself pretty well on quite a few things, although im not willing to do it full time. And the amount of reading that ive done is uncharacteristic of someone whos lazy. I listen to Alex Jones' radio show for 3 hours every day and i have 3 books by David Icke which i read and reread, and although i believe a lot of what i hear/read, it does my head in after a while because its so much information, so if its all the same to you, id prefer to make this more of a general discussion. If you gave me the same reason, i would not accuse you of being lazy, so do me the courtesy of not doing the same.
This is a general discussion about conspiracy theories.
I dont know where you get the idea that i have never read opposing views, or that i refuse to read opposing ideas. Im not an expert on these things, and i dot keep records or footnotes of everything ive read, but when i read about what a controlled demolition looks like, Illuminati symbolism and the fact that its absolutely everywhere, and many other things (ie what the smoking ban is really a part of), its hard to be skeptical, even though a few years ago i wouldnt have believed it. Like ive said, this is just a general discussion about conspiracies.
leafar said: I dont know where you get the idea that i have never read opposing views, or that i refuse to read opposing ideas. Im not an expert on these things, and i dot keep records or footnotes of everything ive read, but when i read about what a controlled demolition looks like, Illuminati symbolism and the fact that its absolutely everywhere, and many other things (ie what the smoking ban is really a part of), its hard to be skeptical, even though a few years ago i wouldnt have believed it. Like ive said, this is just a general discussion about conspiracies.
Well you said that you refused to read the point-by-point rebuttal of Loose Change.
Any idiot knows what a controlled demolition looks like, and the 9/11 collapses did not look like one. It is very easy to mistake certain symbols for something else when ignorant about the history of that symbol. For example, it would be very easy to look at a Buddhist Temple and come to the conclusion that they were actually ove.jpg" TARGET=_blank>Nazis. A little research into work not pushing such a ridiculous story would reveal it to be nonsense. I can't relly comment on the illuminati, but I gather the All-Seeing Eye is Actually a representation of God, and hence hardly evidence of much more than religious zeal.
Its hard to be sceptical when you are as gullible as a two year old. Don't believe everything you read. It is a well know Internet Law that it is possible, within seconds, to find a website that will back up any prejudice you may have, whether it be against the govt, Freemasons, Jews and Blacks. You need to employ critical reasoning skills, which I note you seem a little weak on.
quote:
fiery fred said: The people being accused by CT's have several options, they can fully answer the CT's questions, they can sue the CT'S for slander and or libel or they can employ an army of spammers killing debate with personal abuse on internet forums, employing the latter and not the former two will inevitably make the accused look guilty.
Riiiiiight, so sensible people should step back and let all manner of idiot peddle whatever nonsense they like to a captive audience. What a deliciously stupid piece of logic. Has it ever occurred to you that people think you're wrong because you really are wrong?
Originally posted by leafar: Nice and simple. What do people think?
I think they've replaced religion for many people. You have many of the same things that attract people to religion: being part of a group who believe the same thing, it gives you an identity since you can define yourself against the heathens or dupes, you get a feeling of being special because you're party to a truth that most are unaware of, and you also have the feeling that there is someone in control and there is some order to the world. Perhaps one of the most frightening things about modern society is the feeling that no one is really in control: no god, no politician, no alien power, just chaos - or us. If you believe the world is under the control of some vast power that none of us can hope to defeat then it frees us from the reponsibility of having to do anything about all the bad stuff happening in the world.
Here's a link to the transcript of an Australian TV show which I thought was interesting. As I said on another thread, I'd like to see Richard Dawkins take on conspiracy theories.
fiery fred said: The people being accused by CT's have several options, they can fully answer the CT's questions, they can sue the CT'S for slander and or libel or they can employ an army of spammers killing debate with personal abuse on internet forums, employing the latter and not the former two will inevitably make the accused look guilty.
Riiiiiight, so sensible people should step back and let all manner of idiot peddle whatever nonsense they like to a captive audience. What a deliciously stupid piece of logic. Has it ever occurred to you that people think you're wrong because you really are wrong? [/QUOTE]
I seem to recall Bush jnr' saying at the UN 'let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories re. the 9/11 attacks...' does "never tolerate" mean something different in America?
...and why does Welsh*illoch come here every day arguing the toss with "nonsense peddlars", where is he coming from? me thinks he doth protest too much!
At no point did i say or imply that i never read opposing views. And of course, you already know this very well, because youve read my messages on here. And i do not believe everything i read, and that includes mainstream news, as well as some conspiracy claims. Youre trying to make me out to be biased and ignorant, and youre basing that on nothing. Your noting of the weakness of my critical reasoning skills is also based on nothing. I dont know where you get your ideas about me from. Maybe youre psychic. Or maybe not. But until i know for sure either way, ill keep an open mind. The problem with some people is that they automatically assume that those who believe in a conspiracy dont do research, dont read opposing views, and believe everything they read. And as youve demonstrated, they based those claims on thin air. They also assume that because an idea isnt mainstrem (ie it doesnt appear in the paper or tv) that its automatically flawed. Its no wonder that there are so many "wacky" websites out there, when almost no mainstream channel or paper is interested in presenting complex issues which simply cannot be neatly condensed into a 2 minute section on the news.
Sydbee, im not a conspiracy researcher, so i cannot personally show you anything. But check out, for example, www.davidicke.com, alex jones (google that), texe marrs, jim marrs, michael tsarion. Some of the claims that youll hear are very weird, so id start off by focussing mainly on the social and political aspects, as theyre easier to substantiate, rather than reptilians and things like that, unless youre ready for it. Its advisable to be reasonably thorough when looking at these, because one quick look isnt enough to get a good grasp of what some of these people are saying. And by the way, believing in a non mainstream theory about why 911 happened does not equate with a disrespect for relatives. Its just a different opinion. I wish it didnt happen, i just have a differening view of why it did, and that doesnt make me disrespectful.
I seem to recall Bush jnr' saying at the UN 'let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories re. the 9/11 attacks...' does "never tolerate" mean something different in America?
I couldn't give a flying fig what rhetoric that evil man spouts. He's well known for using inappropriate hyperbole.
quote:
...and why does Welsh*illoch come here every day arguing the toss with "nonsense peddlars", where is he coming from? me thinks he doth protest too much!
Was that an attempt at a puerile insult? I can't really tell. I don't come here everyday, it just happens to be raining at the moment, so I can't go and play tennis with mates.
For the record i post here because I think its useful to actually use my brain every now and again - I highly recommend it. TBH, you're a bit lightweight, so with you I'm only learning to type a bit faster.
by leafer: Your noting of the weakness of my critical reasoning skills is also based on nothing.
I have yet to see any evidence of your skills. I would love to be dazzled by a display of logic from you, but I'm not holding my breath. They say its not good to judge a book by its cover, but judging from what I've read of yours, you are little different to the other CT peddling fools that stray over here and on C4 news every now and again. Please, please prove me wrong.
quote:
They also assume that because an idea isnt mainstrem (ie it doesnt appear in the paper or tv) that its automatically flawed.
Bull. I decide whether something is flawed based on the available evidence and nothing more. The wiretapping and spying carried out by the US govt is an example.
This is silly, why don't we just put you to the test. Pick one of the more common claims made by people such as yourself wrt 9/11. Explain both the claim, its rebuttal that you've read and why you still think the claim is sound. Then I'll reply (not hard, eh?).
Originally posted by fiery fred: All we're asking for is a proper 9/11 enquiry to answer all the unanswered questions, what possible objection could there be?
Twofold - that the questions have already been answered and that the questions aren't valid in the first place, and to try and answer them would be detrimental (eg try answering "Have you stopped beating your wife lately?").
Experience with CTs says that answering questions does not sate the idiocy of those that follow them. This is even more evident since the Internet Age allows people to post answers to every single point made in nonsense like Loose Change.
So if you lived in the times when the world was thought to be flat, and someone told you that they think it may actually be a sphere, instead of saying "well ok, lets see what youve got, then ill see what i think", youd say "you are 100% wrong, and this is a fact, because ive never seen evidence for it"? If this is true, then thats very foolish. You cant go through life presuming to know everything thats true or not based on what youve seen so far. You should be open minded enough to say "hey you know what, i have my opinions, but i really just dont know for sure". All it takes is a lack of insecurity. But guess what, you decide whats what based on what you want to believe.
Youre effectively calling me a chicken if i dont agree to your little test. I have more maturity than that. Like ive said, im not a conspiracy researcher, and this is a general discussion. Youre picking on the wrong person, when there are bigger fish to fry out there. I challenge you (if you wish) to email either David Icke, Alex Jones or whichever researcher you wish, because these people deal with real research and theyll have much more to impart to you than i ever could. If you get a reply from any of them, be prepared for serious evidence. Your approach is just like Dawkins, to go for people who cant tell him much, rather than go after those that can really challenge him. Im just a regular person. Go after the big boys. Not hard, eh?
Originally posted by leafar: So if you lived in the times when the world was thought to be flat, and someone told you that they think it may actually be a sphere, instead of saying "well ok, lets see what youve got, then ill see what i think", youd say "you are 100% wrong, and this is a fact, because ive never seen evidence for it"? If this is true, then thats very foolish.
First of all, its something of a myth that people once thought the earth was flat. Most sea-faring nations have pretty much always known it to be round. The Greeks measured the Earth's circumference to within 2% accuracy in about 300BC. But I get your point, I would have been denying what we now know to be true. Lets use thinking that the earth is at the centre of the universe (geocentrism) instead. It is worth pointing out that your analogy is actually a strawman. The question of the paranormal, or god, is one of existence or non-existence. Heliocentrism and geocentrism are opposing theories, neither is the null hypothesis. Now I don't actually know what evidence was availble to the ancients to support the heliocentric model, and I agree that the geocentric model is the more 'obvious' choice while sitting on earth. In that sense, if I lived in a time when there was no evidence for heliocentrism, but some for geocentrism, yes, I would say that it is foolish to hold a belief on no evidence. But the important point is this: as soon as good evidence for heliocentrism was found, I can re-evaluate the evidence and come to a new conclusion if needs be. The fact that ultimately I would be wrong (in that case) is irrelevant. Its not useful, if told that there is only a 1% chance that the govt was behind 9/11 and it is hence logical to ignore it, to reply "but what if they did?!?!"
I am talking about the logical position to take, not about assigning absolute truth. If you want to not take the logical position and carry on believing regardless, feel free, but do not pretend that your position is defensible.
And also, FFS, I am NOT saying that CTs 100% do not take place, I am saying that the chances are utterly negligible and it is a waste to expend time, money and emotional stress on it.
quote:
You cant go through life presuming to know everything thats true or not based on what youve seen so far. You should be open minded enough to say "hey you know what, i have my opinions, but i really just dont know for sure". All it takes is a lack of insecurity. But guess what, you decide whats what based on what you want to believe.
Indeed you should be open minded, but not so open minded that your brains fall out: you cannot and should not believe in any old nonsense you come across just because you can't think why it might to be true.
quote:
You're effectively calling me a chicken if i dont agree to your little test. I have more maturity than that. Like ive said, im not a conspiracy researcher, and this is a general discussion. Youre picking on the wrong person, when there are bigger fish to fry out there. I challenge you (if you wish) to email either David Icke, Alex Jones or whichever researcher you wish, because these people deal with real research and theyll have much more to impart to you than i ever could. If you get a reply from any of them, be prepared for serious evidence. Your approach is just like Dawkins, to go for people who cant tell him much, rather than go after those that can really challenge him. Im just a regular person. Go after the big boys. Not hard, eh?
Well I'm flattered that you think I'm any sort of expert either. And yes, I think you are a chicken. I'm not demanding a test of your ability to research, I want to know how you rationalise something which is clearly nonsensical despite people telling you as such.
For example: Do you think that the twin towers could not have collapsed with explosives planted in them?
