"Conspiracy theories,"

Post Reply New Topic

I'm open-minded. I'm also a critical thinker who relies on reason with applied logic. How can you dismiss conspiracy theories, that over time have proven to be true? (Gulf of Tonkin incident for example, Sinking of the Lusitania, etc) ? I'll grant you, I only take up an argument when evidence is presented and not based on emotion. To argue that all conspiracy theories are all false is just irrational and illogical.

Was it reasonable back then to believe without evidence that they were valid?

Is it reasonable to accept the 9/11 conspiracy theory as valid? What about the Apollo moon landing hoax theory? etc.

[quote="MCalavera"]Was it reasonable back then to believe without evidence that they were valid?

It's a conspiracy theory ..... you don't accept it as fact until it's proven fact. You want to use 9,11 as an example. People formulate conspiracies about it not based on pure speculation, but by independent, alternative analysis on evidence. I don't believe in the moon landing hoax, however I heard the arguments presented by conspirators like Joe Rogan and just disagree with it. Here is a list for example, of a few conspiracies that proved to be true. Sometimes people have an inclination to believe an alternate explanation of something, because what's given to them is infact, not the truth.

Actually, 9/11 conspiracy theories are based on speculations and a lot of selectivity when it comes to evidence based on whether the evidence agrees with the conspiracy theorist's view.

So you agree that something cannot be considered valid without evidence, right?

And I forgot to mention people who use belittling the other side to make their argument.



And the other side ignores the simple fact that it only takes a handful of people IN THE RIGHT POSITIONS to pull off something of that magnitude. Even then, you only need to "eliminate" your helpers if you want to narrow the pool of who knows what you did. Pawns are expendable, after all.

You want to insist that there is nothing the the fact that remains of WTC tested positive for explosives?

You want to insist that WTC 7 (which was demolished) was arranged in a controlled implosion in a matter of hours when demolition experts say it takes weeks of planning to know how to lay out explosives to properly implode a structure?

These facts call the official account into question, but you want to argue that it SEEMS implausible. Do you have experience in black ops? Do you know anyone who does? We do a Hell of a lot of stuff that seems impossible to people who don't know what people are trained to do with minimal resources. Heck, we know the government is now watching most everything over the phones and internet, but people think, "It's not possible to store all that data." False...it is possible, and they're about to open a new facility in Utah to do just that.

It's easy to utilize someone's limited understanding of specific fields to convince them of a lie. It's why many lawyers don't want "educated" people on a jury. They want the jury to listen only to the experts providing testimony...not people who have their own knowledge to know if the "expert" is being honest or trying to BS them into believing their side of the story.

I'm willing to admit I may be wrong. Show me proof of that the government's story holds up when confronted with irrefutable evidence to the contrary. Want to just parrot "experts" who don't do that and make insults, who being the delusional person now?

The funny thing about the 9/11 issue - whether one believes that it was wholly the work of 21 terrorists and jet fuel melting the supports of the buildings or whether one believes that it was plains plus controlled demolition as an Illuminati/globalist false flag - both are conspiracies, just that one is face value, the other takes on theory in terms of connecting dots via seeming holes in the jet fuel theory or the popular WC7.

IMHO if it wasn't concocted by the globalists - at the very minimum it was incredibly convenient to their goals.

It depends on a person to person basis. the 9, 11 commission left out alot, and simply didn't cover issues or address questions that were asked specifically. It withheld evidence, etc. For whatever the case, the explanation wasn't sufficient enough for truthers. Too many inconsistencies are attributed, too many contradictions, strange anomalies that people reference when refuting the official explanation. I think that it's great people are critical and can think for themselves, it offers a different perspective that perhaps is a more accurate perception of reality.

Over a dozen people say they were actually on the moon, several others say they flew around the moon. Are they all liars?

And what about those man made mirrors on the moon that reflect back laser beams precisely. How did they get there?

ruveyn

I'd have to go back and dig it up, but somewhere there was a PNAC document written back in the 1970's where they explicitly stated they'd need another "pearl harbor incident" to get the ball rolling on their agenda come round the turn of the century, and they explicitly described the idea of using commercial airliners to attack large buildings. It was FDR who stated "nothing in politics happens by accident."

lets see. 9/11 happened in 2001. The U.S. did not get into a war with a Muslim state until 2003. It is like comparing the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor which occurred on 12/7/1941 and the U.S declaring war sometime in 1943.

ruveyn

And there goes the fallacy, it obviously was true, but, even though it's now irrefutably proven to be true, not even so much as a "daggon, you were right." If we were right about that, could some of us not also be right on other things too?

But you do realize, it takes time to create a social change in peoples' perceptions and behavior, it takes time to fill out political agendas, sometimes it may take generations. One on-going agenda being progressed over several generations. An agenda is basically another word for a plan, a business plan. All these "prophecies" from religions that are coming true? Well, religion is a business plan veiled in metaphor, rather your talking about Christianity, Islam, Budhism, Judaism, Paganism, Hinduism, w/e, it's spoken on 2 levels. The literal level which is used to dumb down the masses, and the real meaning hidden in metaphor, the same hidden message in all of them, which is a business plan. Hence why all these "prophecies" are coming true, because they are fulfilling their own "prophecies" by advancing their business plan. And religious people will often take this as evidence theyr religion is the right one, there are some Christians who even believe in trying to speed up the process of the "end times" because they actually think they will be "raptured" faster. But once you get to the top it's all the same religion.

Academia folks these days like to attack old religion because it's such an easy thing to attack, so they have no problem seeing how crooked the Church was. But if the church is losing status (and it is, the old religions are slowly dying off), then where did the priesthoods transfer their power to? I mean for centuries they used the church to oppress millions, they kept that system going for quite some time... Then the church fell, in it's place sprang up Academia, science, etc which has become a religion in itself in many respects for many people.... It serves the same purpose religion does. They of coarse did this too in USSR, they merely replaced mythological dogma with political dogma, the state became god. And then I also see a bunch of people on the left who believe big government is the answer to everything. The "education system" is in many ways like the new church.

Apples and oranges.

1. Everything that followed 9/11 (from the PATRIOT Act to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) would likely never have happened without the events of 9/11 to fuel the hysteria that made them come to pass.

2. The world was already at war when Pearl Harbor happened. America was fighting a division over whether to get involved or not. Pearl Harbor provided the momentum needed to change public opinion. As we were already providing weapons and supplies to allies in the war effort, it wasn't that hard to go all the way to being involved ourselves.

We always get blamed for that.Silly mammal,it was the CIA,Elvis ordered the hit.

Agreed. A conspiracy theory is an explanatory proposition that accuses a person, group or organization of having caused or covered up an event or phenomenon of great social, political, or economic impact, with the conspiricists more concerned with being believed than with actually telling the truth, while concentrating their efforts on inspiring doubt in leadership and media instead of providing any effective solutions to the problems they claim are real.

The two greatest challenges anyone can make to a conspiricist are a demand for valid empirical evidence to support their claims (i.e. "Evidence, Please?"), and a demand to know what they are doing about it. This is because it seems that if someone is telling you their favorite conspiracy theory without supportive evidence or a plan for resolution, then it's a safe bet that the "Conspiracy" is all in their heads.

Conspiracy theories are like paranoia. Just because you think everyone is against ya doesn't mean they aint!
Actually, I believe that everyone is against me. They are also against you! It's every man for himself! Am I paranoid because I think everyone is against me? Or not paranoid because I do not think I was selected for persecution?
Actually, I think that the current abolishment of our rights (indefinite detention, habeus corpus not guaranteed, no right to privacy...) is because the elite know that climate change, the loss of available oil...will impact the working class dramatically and make us finally rebel.