What's with all the conspiracy theories?

[farmer joe]

Ok, I only watched a very brief section of one of the videos you linked to and did check out the website. My first impressions was that of some sort of infomercial.

I also looked at the comments found here:

Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: Where Did the Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-energy Technology on 9/11

And am not impressed. I haven't given it a fair look, to be fair, but I think I'll be tip-toeing into this because initial impressions raise a few red flags.

You could be right. I look at things as a possiblility, as I have learned that I may never know the whole truth. I do know our government has invested in direct energy technology. Other than that I do not really know what that entails. Thats is why I wish others would dicuss these things instead of using mockery and name calling. That is also why I keep an open mind to many possibilities.
I am interested in your thoughts on it, as you appear to also have an open mind on other possibilities. Thank you.

 

[farmer joe]

You could be right. I look at things as a possiblility, as I have learned that I may never know the whole truth. I do know our government has invested in direct energy technology. Other than that I do not really know what that entails. Thats is why I wish others would dicuss these things instead of using mockery and name calling. That is also why I keep an open mind to many possibilities.
I am interested in your thoughts on it, as you appear to also have an open mind on other possibilities. Thank you.

My mistake, let me rephrase the part where I said, "I do know that our government has invested in direct energy technology". I should have said and meant to say, "that I have read and heard that they have".

 

[cow451]

My mistake, let me rephrase the part where I said, "I do know that our government has invested in direct energy technology". I should have said and meant to say, "that I have read and heard that they have".

Maybe there's hope for you after all.

 

[farmer joe]

Nekoda, its been nice dealing with you. But after reading some threads about why others have letf this forum, I am going to join them. Good luck to you and God bless you. Sorry, but I have had enough.

 

[sword_of_truth]

Same as always;

1. People feel a need to explain tragic, random events. Thus a super secret cabal, directing tragedy behind the scenes, is somehow more comforting than the idea that bad things happen randomly, and can happen to anyone, at any time. Most people don't explain anything. they just take the mainstream media as its fed to them. they don't question anything and they don't see why they have to.

2. Disaffected people can feel better about themselves by a. Blaming their shortcommings on some sort of external enemy, and b. They get to feel superior towards all the "sheeple", because unlike them, they are the posessors of a deeper, fundamental truth. It's not hard feeling more superior to people who don't care.

3. People love a mystery and intrigue and the allure of "forbidden knowledge", even if they know its bogus. Which is why Discovery and History channels are so clutered up with shows with "secret" and "exposed" and "truth" and "code" in the title. That's because it's served up on a plate and made palatable for the apathetic. the truth in any context, usually requires some work and commitment.

Pattern identification and confirmation bias do th rest.

again, in any case, if we just discuss the evidence and represent it fairly, the truth should be discernable and these ridiculous discussions of whether or not something is a conspiracy theory will quickly evaporate.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

again, in any case, if we just discuss the evidence and represent it fairly, the truth should be discernable and these ridiculous discussions of whether or not something is a conspiracy theory will quickly evaporate.

That would be true, if conspiracy theorists were interested in discussing evidence and representing it fairly. But they aren't.

Most people don't explain anything. they just take the mainstream media as its fed to them. they don't question anything and they don't see why they have to.

Look, questioning stuff is great, but just because you question the official story doesn't necessarily mean the official story is wrong. And I'm pretty confident about most of the recurring conspiracy tgheories that they've been questioned fairly exhaustively. The flip side of the questioning coin, that conspiracy theorists seem to ignore, that you have to abide by the answers to your questions, even when they aren't the answers you were expecting or hoping for.

It's not hard feeling more superior to people who don't care.

And I bet it makes you feel great, telling yourself how much you care, when everyone else just doesn't get it, huh?

That's because it's served up on a plate and made palatable for the apathetic. the truth in any context, usually requires some work and commitment.

Indeed, it often does, which is why its so frustrating when conspiracy theorists ignore the work and commitment of others to bring them the truth, and carry on their merry, paranoid way, no matter what evidence is presented them.

 

[Nekoda]

again, in any case, if we just discuss the evidence and represent it fairly, the truth should be discernable and these ridiculous discussions of whether or not something is a conspiracy theory will quickly evaporate.

I'm afraid it's not always a matter of either the evidence or representing it fairly.

More often it is about psychological self protection. You can show someone evidence, you can use crystal clear logic and facts - but if it leads to a conclusion that threatens their world view - they will likely shut it out.

Taking out present day conspiracies - try to convince a Vietnam vet just returning home from a tour of duty in Vietnam that his government lied to him about the Gulf of Tonkin incident - and the motive behind the US involvement there wasn't about noble motives of "ridding the world of communism" but about getting funding for the military and certain corporations making lots out of it.

He doesn't want to hear that - no matter what evidence you present to him. It doesn't fit his world-view. He just risked his life and saw friends die. He might have lost an arm or leg. He saw and witnessed unspeakable horrors. No - he *wants* to believe he was there for a good cause. In his mind, he was. Telling him the truth is like smacking him in the face.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

More often it is about psychological self protection. You can show someone evidence, you can use crystal clear logic and facts - but if it leads to a conclusion that threatens their world view - they will likely shut it out.

I know. Try showing a truther evidence that threatens their world view.

 

[Nekoda]

I know. Try showing a truther evidence that threatens their world view.

As I've already stated, my world view neither makes me popular nor does it bring me comfort.

As for what I believe about 911. Well, I believed the official story much as you do at one time. It wasn't a joy ride learning some deeply held beliefs I had turned out to be a load of stuff. Not only about the day, but some fundamental beliefs most people who have grown up in the USA have.

My current beliefs also put me at odds with most truthers.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

As I've already stated, my world view neither makes me popular nor does it bring me comfort.

As for what I believe about 911. Well, I believed the official story much as you do at one time. It wasn't a joy ride learning some deeply held beliefs I had turned out to be a load of stuff. Not only about the day, but some fundamental beliefs most people who have grown up in the USA have.

My current beliefs also put me at odds with most truthers.

Do tell?

 

[Nekoda]

Do tell?

I've already linked videos, which you refuse to watch. If you aren't brave enough to watch and answer point by point - then there is not much reason in continuing a discussion on this topic.

 

[ManFromUncle]

Saying "all the conspiracy theories" is just an intellectually lazy way of dismissing anything you have already decided you don't want to believe. Obviously some are loopy, and others have more substance. Every time a cop looks into a murder where a man is shot dead and a scheming wife is a suspect he could be looking into a "conspiracy theory." Does that mean such murders should never be investigated? You would let all the crooks go, in your world, as long as someone branded it a "conspiracy theory."

 

[Blackwater Babe]

I've already linked videos, which you refuse to watch. If you aren't brave enough to watch and answer point by point - then there is not much reason in continuing a discussion on this topic.

Yeah, I've wasted enough bandwidth on conspiracy videos in the past. If you can't express your own position in your own words, well...

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Saying "all the conspiracy theories" is just an intellectually lazy way of dismissing anything you have already decided you don't want to believe. Obviously some are loopy, and others have more substance. Every time a cop looks into a murder where a man is shot dead and a scheming wife is a suspect he could be looking into a "conspiracy theory." Does that mean such murders should never be investigated? You would let all the crooks go, in your world, as long as someone branded it a "conspiracy theory."

As noted elsewhere, there is a difference in general understanding between "conspiracy" and "conspiracy theories". There are theories of conspiracy that are legit, and theories of conspiracy that are nuts. The nutty ones tend to be collectively called "conspiracy theories".

If you have a preferred short hand term for the nuttier theories of conspiracy, I'd be happy to use it?

 

[ManFromUncle]

As noted elsewhere, there is a difference in general understanding between "conspiracy" and "conspiracy theories". There are theories of conspiracy that are legit, and theories of conspiracy that are nuts. The nutty ones tend to be collectively called "conspiracy theories".

If you have a preferred short hand term for the nuttier theories of conspiracy, I'd be happy to use it?

Exactly so. So who is to distinguish between the "nutty" ones and the ones with merit? Let's say, the willingness of credentialed experts in the academic and professional worlds to go on record with their objections and criticisms of the "official story." By that standard the 9/11 truth movement would have some merit, judging from the thousands of engineers, architects, and other experts who state their names, institutions, and professional experience, in one organization alone: Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. The documentary "Explosive Evidence: Experts Speak Out" doesn't even let them on camera unless they have decades of experience in their fields. What's the upside for them? To be ridiculed and lose work because people now call them nuts?

Everyone should watch the documentary, here is the trailer to it:

[youtube]LrjcXOJIWw0[/youtube]

http://www.ae911truth.org

Then you have other groups, made up of military officers, pilots, intelligence professionals etc. in Patriots Question 9/11. What's the upside for them beside loving their country and wanting the truth to be known?

From: http://patriotsquestion911.com/

Col. George Nelson, MBA

Col. George Nelson, MBA, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority. Graduate, U.S. Air Force War College. 34-year Air Force career. Licensed commercial pilot. Licensed airframe and powerplant mechanic. [/i]

Lt. Col. Guy S. Razer, MS

Lt. Col. Guy S. Razer, MS Aeronautical Science, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Retired U.S. Air Force command fighter pilot. Former instructor; U.S. Air Force Fighter Weapons School. Combat time over Iraq. 20-year Air Force career. "
I am 100% convinced that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were planned, organized, and committed by treasonous perpetrators that have infiltrated the highest levels of our government. It is now time to take our country back. The "collapse" of WTC Building 7 shows beyond any doubt that the demolitions were pre-planned."

Commander Ralph Kolstad

Commander Ralph Kolstad, U.S. Navy (ret) – Retired fighter pilot. Former Air Combat Instructor, U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School (Topgun). 20-year Navy career. Retired commercial airline captain with 27 years experience. Aircraft flown: Boeing 727, 757 and 767, 23,000+ total hours flown. "I started questioning the Sept 11, 2001 “story” only days after the event. It just didn't make any sense to me. How could a steel and concrete building collapse after being hit by a Boeing 767? Didn't the engineers design it to withstand a direct hit from a Boeing 707, approximately the same size and weight of the 767? The evidence just didn't add up. ... At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757’s and 767’s and could not have flown it the way the flight path was described...something stinks to high heaven.

http://patriotsquestion911.com/


Then you have Dr. Paul Craig Roberts from the Reagan administration.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, Top Reagan Official, Blasts Official 9/11 Story

Dr. Roberts was an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Ronald Reagan, and an editor of the Wall Street Journal and the National Review. He has held the William E. Simon Chair for Economic Policy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies at Georgetown University, and is a Distinguished Fellow at the Cato Institute and a Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution.

What we know and don’t know about 9/11

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

08/16/06 "Information Clearing House" -- --

I will begin by stating what we know to be a solid incontrovertible scientific fact.

We know that it is strictly impossible for any building, much less steel columned buildings, to “pancake” at free fall speed. Therefore, it is a non-controversial fact that the official explanation of the collapse of the WTC buildings is false.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Cherry picked credentialed experts doesn't work. We have this thing called consensus. I can find you real live doctors and nurses who will claim vaccines cause disease, Brazil nuts and orange juice cure cancer, and dentists who claim fluoride is bad for teeth. Accepting unquestioningly someone's opinion just because they are credentialled is poor practice.

I'm not questioning that these experts believe the stuff they are saying. People who espouse conspiracy theories genuinely believe this stuff. That doesn't make it true. I already listed reasons people are likely to believe conspiracy theories. In short, mostly its because people seek pattern and reason in generally random events.

 

[ManFromUncle]

Cherry picked credentialed experts doesn't work. We have this thing called consensus. I can find you real live doctors and nurses who will claim vaccines cause disease, Brazil nuts and orange juice cure cancer, and dentists who claim fluoride is bad for teeth. Accepting unquestioningly someone's opinion just because they are credentialled is poor practice.

I'm not questioning that these experts believe the stuff they are saying. People who espouse conspiracy theories genuinely believe this stuff. That doesn't make it true. I already listed reasons people are likely to believe conspiracy theories. In short, mostly its because people seek pattern and reason in generally random events.

The "experts" cited by the government were cherry picked by the government. We have this thing called corruption. You supported my argument. You said:

"Accepting unquestioningly someone's opinion just because they are credentialled is poor practice."

Yet you accept the government's story as true for that reason, and call everything else a "conspiracy theory."

The key word is unquestioningly. It's called thinking for yourself. And for starters, no mass can fall through steel, even if it is "soft like clay" as the official story says, at virtually the same speed as it falls through air, because steel is much denser than air. The towers' demolition line accelerated downward at near-free-fall speed. No one can answer or rebut that iron law of physics. The rest is icing on the cake.

 

[cow451]

Then you have Dr. Paul Craig Roberts from the Reagan administration.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, Top Reagan Official, Blasts Official 9/11 Story

Dr. Roberts was an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Ronald Reagan, and an editor of the Wall Street Journal and the National Review. He has held the William E. Simon Chair for Economic Policy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies at Georgetown University, and is a Distinguished Fellow at the Cato Institute and a Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution.

What we know and don’t know about 9/11

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

08/16/06 "Information Clearing House" -- --

I will begin by stating what we know to be a solid incontrovertible scientific fact.

We know that it is strictly impossible for any building, much less steel columned buildings, to “pancake” at free fall speed. Therefore, it is a non-controversial fact that the official explanation of the collapse of the WTC buildings is false.​

1) He is an economist.
2) The Pancake Theory, was discarded early on as evidence came in, a fact that the Truthers ignore.
3) The "official" story, as I have seen in reports, does not claim "free fall Speed" and the evidence doesn't support that contention and no one except truthers make the claim.
4) His opinion is an opinion, not an "non-controversial fact."
​

 

[Blackwater Babe]

The "experts" cited by the government were cherry picked by the government. We have this thing called corruption. You supported my argument. You said:

Yet you accept the government's story as true for that reason, and call everything else a "conspiracy theory."

The key word is unquestioningly. It's called thinking for yourself. And for starters, no mass can fall through steel, even if it is "soft like clay" as the official story says, at virtually the same speed as it falls through air, because steel is much denser than air. The towers' demolition line accelerated downward at near-free-fall speed. No one can answer or rebut that iron law of physics. The rest is icing on the cake.

There are many non government scientists and engineers who confirm the "official" story too. Sorry you don't like it, but far away most of the experts in the relevent fields do. Including my husband. I admit, I may have a little bit of a bias there, but when he personally tells me he's not involved in a conspiracy, I tend to believe him.

 

[ManFromUncle]

There are many non government scientists and engineers who confirm the "official" story too. Sorry you don't like it, but far away most of the experts in the relevent fields do. Including my husband. I admit, I may have a little bit of a bias there, but when he personally tells me he's not involved in a conspiracy, I tend to believe him.

Then ask him how concrete can fall through steel, even if it is "soft like clay," at virtually the same speed as it would fall through air (90% of free fall speed is still free fall speed for these purposes,) and he can get a Nobel Prize for revising the laws of physics. Summary here:

The Easiest Way to Understand 9/11 Was a Demolition: Free-Fall