Is a Conspiracy Theorist someone who ignorantly believes things,?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-08-2013, 09:57 PM
RE: Is a Conspiracy Theorist someone who ignorantly believes things,?
(16-08-2013 09:01 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  JFK and 911 make such good conspiracy fodder because the official versions are so dubious.

A wingless plane with no tail hits the Pentagon? A dude leaves a tear jerking cell phone message, regains control of the cockpit in hand to hand combat and then initiates a nose dive above PA? Both towers look exactly like a controlled demolition.

A magical bullet arcs to hit JFK at a different angle?

....Doesn't mean the consipiracists are anywhere near the truth mind you... Just like if one could prove there was a god it wouldn't make it the christian god.....It just means the official versions don't add up.

...Oh and as always the conspiracy vs the state crap probably obscures a lot of real issues like all the asbestos the EPA likely neglected to clean up in NYC and firefighters not getting their medical.

Do yo know what the wings and tail of an airliner are made of? Aluminum.

Did you know you can burn aluminum to a fine, grey ash in a backyard charcoal grill?

A little science clears up a lot of questions.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2013, 10:54 PM
RE: Is a Conspiracy Theorist someone who ignorantly believes things,?
(16-08-2013 09:55 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  I can get the pentagon, you can chalk that up to sheer velocity I suppose and I get the towers as well with the pancaking and all that, I'm sure physics/architecture can explain it but it heightens my sense of scrutiny. I'm not claiming that the government brought down the towers with C4 I'm saying the actual happenings look suspicious on the surface...

Look suspicious. There are explanations. There have been for years...

"I think it looks suspicious" is pretty crummy starting point. "I want more evidence" is fair enough, but there just plain isn't any in some cases. Every component you add to the story necessarily increases its complexity exponentially.

(16-08-2013 09:55 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  ...Except the plane in PA, it just doesn't add up. I really can't believe some dude brought that plane down... It's perfectly plausible to assume it was shot down in a lesser of two evils situation...rural location....too good to be true cell phone calls...the logistics of reclaiming a cockpit that has been sealed without the aid of a hostage. Doesn't mean it was an inside job, just that collateral damage was covered up. The AF scrabbles jets many times in a year for less, they really wouldn't be doing their jobs if they knowingly let that plane crash into DC.

I don't care enough to have looked into it much - as you note, that particular footnote is irrelevant to the broader course of events and their aftermath. But nothing I know would lead me to believe it 'doesn't add up'. The (in)security of the cockpit is a matter of record. Determined people in close quarters with 10:1 odds? Active destruction would involve authorization and participation of dozens of people. Every one of them being utterly silent? The crash site and damage were not consistent with the plane having been damaged. Add the large-scale investigation of said wreckage and recovery of partial records - so that's more people to have to keep silent?

(16-08-2013 09:55 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  The only conspiracy is in the cover up and if Bradley Manning has taught us anything it's that the military is really good at sweeping shit under the rug.

If by "really good at sweeping shit under the rug" you mean "really good at eventually being found out", then sure.

(16-08-2013 09:55 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  ...and JFK? Come now, the dude was not a pinball machine and the mob kills Oswald almost immediately. Crazy unlikely ricochet is one thing, crazy unlikely ricochet, tons of foul play and broken procedure, and a second assassination is another thing entirely.

I find the ballistics analysis perfectly plausible ('crazy unlikely' is... hyperbolic). Shoddy procedure could suggest something, I guess, but it's perfectly accountable by flawed human beings under tremendous pressure.

Sure. It isn't perfectly well understood. Never will be. But if the consensus is wrong or incomplete, what was the conspiracy? What was behind the scenes?

And here I'm not addressing you - I know you're smarter than this. But there are a lot of people (and these are almost always the ones who are just trolling) whose train of thought stops at "lol conspiracy". Because making any actual claims would let the be examined...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
17-08-2013, 02:38 AM
RE: Is a Conspiracy Theorist someone who ignorantly believes things,?
(13-08-2013 08:30 PM)Kymatica Wrote:  Thoughts?

Okay, I'll have a go. A "theorist" about a conspiracy is someone who thinks they have enough evidence to believe in covert collusion that contrary evidence needs to be extraordinary to be considered. And I'm gonna stick to "covert," because when cooperation to commit bad actions is public or proven, it's more like a known fact than a theory.

So, for example, "The CIA tried to kill Fidel Castro" isn't a conspiracy theory, because it's well documented in now-declassified files that they tried dozens of times. But, "The CIA killed Hugo Chavez by giving him a cancer-causing agent" is a conspiracy theory, because it's an affirmative statement that's unproven.

This is not the same as someone who doubts an official story, and is open to more information that might or might not be available. That's more like a skeptic, wouldn't you say? So, "The CIA has a history of trying to kill foreign leaders unfriendly to US capitalism, and Chavez died pretty quick, and maybe there's more to that than what I hear on FOX and CNN" isn't a conspiracy theory, because there's no theory. Just a skeptical standpoint, and an open mind.

WWMWAZSKDTVQHTMJD?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like I Am's post
17-08-2013, 07:06 AM
RE: Is a Conspiracy Theorist someone who ignorantly believes things,?
(17-08-2013 02:38 AM)I Am Wrote:  So, "The CIA has a history of trying to kill foreign leaders unfriendly to US capitalism, and Chavez died pretty quick, and maybe there's more to that than what I hear on FOX and CNN" isn't a conspiracy theory, because there's no theory. Just a skeptical standpoint, and an open mind.

Yes. So very quickly, after his 2 year diagnosis and 14 years in power.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
17-08-2013, 07:27 AM
Re: Is a Conspiracy Theorist someone who ignorantly believes things,?
People prefer to believe in conspiracies because they often imply some much larger plot that some larger group is controlling. The idea that people can behave randomly or that individuals can do bad things on their own that effect a lot of people, is far scarier than the government or some secret group controlling things. The government and/or group may have some goal or objective that omits the average person, but the average person committing a violent act makes it obvious that is not the case.

The Boston marathon bombers, fort hood, columbine, Lee Harvey Oswald, Boothe, etc, are all scary because they represent 1 to 2 individuals taking life for either personal ideological reasons, but primarily at random.

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2013, 12:50 PM (This post was last modified: 17-08-2013 12:55 PM by ridethespiral.)
RE: Is a Conspiracy Theorist someone who ignorantly believes things,?
(16-08-2013 10:54 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(16-08-2013 09:55 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  I can get the pentagon, you can chalk that up to sheer velocity I suppose and I get the towers as well with the pancaking and all that, I'm sure physics/architecture can explain it but it heightens my sense of scrutiny. I'm not claiming that the government brought down the towers with C4 I'm saying the actual happenings look suspicious on the surface...

Look suspicious. There are explanations. There have been for years...

"I think it looks suspicious" is pretty crummy starting point. "I want more evidence" is fair enough, but there just plain isn't any in some cases. Every component you add to the story necessarily increases its complexity exponentially.

(16-08-2013 09:55 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  ...Except the plane in PA, it just doesn't add up. I really can't believe some dude brought that plane down... It's perfectly plausible to assume it was shot down in a lesser of two evils situation...rural location....too good to be true cell phone calls...the logistics of reclaiming a cockpit that has been sealed without the aid of a hostage. Doesn't mean it was an inside job, just that collateral damage was covered up. The AF scrabbles jets many times in a year for less, they really wouldn't be doing their jobs if they knowingly let that plane crash into DC.

I don't care enough to have looked into it much - as you note, that particular footnote is irrelevant to the broader course of events and their aftermath. But nothing I know would lead me to believe it 'doesn't add up'. The (in)security of the cockpit is a matter of record. Determined people in close quarters with 10:1 odds? Active destruction would involve authorization and participation of dozens of people. Every one of them being utterly silent? The crash site and damage were not consistent with the plane having been damaged. Add the large-scale investigation of said wreckage and recovery of partial records - so that's more people to have to keep silent?

(16-08-2013 09:55 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  The only conspiracy is in the cover up and if Bradley Manning has taught us anything it's that the military is really good at sweeping shit under the rug.

If by "really good at sweeping shit under the rug" you mean "really good at eventually being found out", then sure.

(16-08-2013 09:55 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  ...and JFK? Come now, the dude was not a pinball machine and the mob kills Oswald almost immediately. Crazy unlikely ricochet is one thing, crazy unlikely ricochet, tons of foul play and broken procedure, and a second assassination is another thing entirely.

I find the ballistics analysis perfectly plausible ('crazy unlikely' is... hyperbolic). Shoddy procedure could suggest something, I guess, but it's perfectly accountable by flawed human beings under tremendous pressure.

Sure. It isn't perfectly well understood. Never will be. But if the consensus is wrong or incomplete, what was the conspiracy? What was behind the scenes?

And here I'm not addressing you - I know you're smarter than this. But there are a lot of people (and these are almost always the ones who are just trolling) whose train of thought stops at "lol conspiracy". Because making any actual claims would let the be examined...

Dubious may have been the wrong choice of words. My original post was just trying to point out that there is a lot of stuff that doesn't seem to fit the bill from a layman perspective.

Again the only real 911 conspiracy I embrace is the PA flight being shot down, if it wasn't 'taken down by brave civilians' the next step would have been blowing it out of the sky anyway. I don't believe Ussef Al Bin Boxcutter or whatever his name was would have allowed cell phone calls (or that there would have been reception at that altitude)...Yeah I guess enough determined people could have busted down the cockpit door...but not one would of them could take the yoke in a life of death circumstance? or hit the auto pilot (why would attitude control be off anyway)?

...and it's of little consequence, the government made the (right) hard choice and covered it up...or a citizen made said choice and was a hero for it...at the end of the day the outcome is nearly identical.

As for JFK I dunno, every documentary wants to pin it on someone (I watched a film that suggested George Bush Snr, was the ring leader) but all of the evidence is buried in clandestine dealings and circumstantial BS...I don't think we will ever know...but the mob doesn't kill witnesses for no reason someone didn't want Oswald to take the stand and when you couple that with bouncy bullets the red flags begin to rise.

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2013, 04:15 PM
RE: Is a Conspiracy Theorist someone who ignorantly believes things,?
(17-08-2013 12:50 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  Dubious may have been the wrong choice of words. My original post was just trying to point out that there is a lot of stuff that doesn't seem to fit the bill from a layman perspective.

Oh, absolutely, but a layman's perspective is meaningless. And it perpetuates the fail when someone is biased in evaluating sources, such that they reject the consensus because it is the consensus...

(17-08-2013 12:50 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  As for JFK I dunno, every documentary wants to pin it on someone (I watched a film that suggested George Bush Snr, was the ring leader) but all of the evidence is buried in clandestine dealings and circumstantial BS...I don't think we will ever know...but the mob doesn't kill witnesses for no reason someone didn't want Oswald to take the stand and when you couple that with bouncy bullets the red flags begin to rise.

There was some funny stuff, but the ballistics isn't a red flag Tongue.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2013, 06:25 PM
RE: Is a Conspiracy Theorist someone who ignorantly believes things,?
(17-08-2013 12:50 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  
(16-08-2013 10:54 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Look suspicious. There are explanations. There have been for years...

"I think it looks suspicious" is pretty crummy starting point. "I want more evidence" is fair enough, but there just plain isn't any in some cases. Every component you add to the story necessarily increases its complexity exponentially.


I don't care enough to have looked into it much - as you note, that particular footnote is irrelevant to the broader course of events and their aftermath. But nothing I know would lead me to believe it 'doesn't add up'. The (in)security of the cockpit is a matter of record. Determined people in close quarters with 10:1 odds? Active destruction would involve authorization and participation of dozens of people. Every one of them being utterly silent? The crash site and damage were not consistent with the plane having been damaged. Add the large-scale investigation of said wreckage and recovery of partial records - so that's more people to have to keep silent?


If by "really good at sweeping shit under the rug" you mean "really good at eventually being found out", then sure.


I find the ballistics analysis perfectly plausible ('crazy unlikely' is... hyperbolic). Shoddy procedure could suggest something, I guess, but it's perfectly accountable by flawed human beings under tremendous pressure.

Sure. It isn't perfectly well understood. Never will be. But if the consensus is wrong or incomplete, what was the conspiracy? What was behind the scenes?

And here I'm not addressing you - I know you're smarter than this. But there are a lot of people (and these are almost always the ones who are just trolling) whose train of thought stops at "lol conspiracy". Because making any actual claims would let the be examined...

Dubious may have been the wrong choice of words. My original post was just trying to point out that there is a lot of stuff that doesn't seem to fit the bill from a layman perspective.

Again the only real 911 conspiracy I embrace is the PA flight being shot down, if it wasn't 'taken down by brave civilians' the next step would have been blowing it out of the sky anyway. I don't believe Ussef Al Bin Boxcutter or whatever his name was would have allowed cell phone calls (or that there would have been reception at that altitude)...Yeah I guess enough determined people could have busted down the cockpit door...but not one would of them could take the yoke in a life of death circumstance? or hit the auto pilot (why would attitude control be off anyway)?

...and it's of little consequence, the government made the (right) hard choice and covered it up...or a citizen made said choice and was a hero for it...at the end of the day the outcome is nearly identical.

As for JFK I dunno, every documentary wants to pin it on someone (I watched a film that suggested George Bush Snr, was the ring leader) but all of the evidence is buried in clandestine dealings and circumstantial BS...I don't think we will ever know...but the mob doesn't kill witnesses for no reason someone didn't want Oswald to take the stand and when you couple that with bouncy bullets the red flags begin to rise.

Modern autopilots have wing stabilizers, auto-throttle, auto-pitch and trim. But moving the controls automatically overrides the autopilot... for pure safety reasons.

An autopilot cannot see what's going on outside, and the pilot must be able to react and take control in an instant. For example, a mid air collision cannot be avoided by autopilot, but a human could grab the controls and avoid an accident.

The cockpit voice recorders show that the passengers were fighting with the hijackers in the cockpit in the seconds before the crash.

As for allowing phone calls, it's unlikely there was a guard in the passenger cabin after the hijacking.

A lot of conspiracy theorists say that the wreckage was spread over several miles, seemingly consistent with a mid-air explosion. But that only refers to light weight paper material, blow by the wind and distributed over a wide area. The reason there was so little left of the fuselage is because it was a near vertical nosedive... most air crashes end with a belly flop landing, where the pilots instinctively attempt to recover and pull the aircraft up...

Shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, tits... - George Carlin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2013, 10:27 PM
RE: Is a Conspiracy Theorist someone who ignorantly believes things,?
I think it's someone who creates conspiracy theories.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2013, 07:28 AM
RE: Is a Conspiracy Theorist someone who ignorantly believes things,?
(17-08-2013 02:38 AM)I Am Wrote:  This is not the same as someone who doubts an official story, and is open to more information that might or might not be available. That's more like a skeptic, wouldn't you say? So, "The CIA has a history of trying to kill foreign leaders unfriendly to US capitalism, and Chavez died pretty quick, and maybe there's more to that than what I hear on FOX and CNN" isn't a conspiracy theory, because there's no theory. Just a skeptical standpoint, and an open mind.

For years I could never quite consider myself a conspiracy theorist, but wasn't sure how to articulate it. You nailed it.

Believing a crazy story as a possible answer for something without evidence is not even a theory, so I would argue that most "conspiracy theories" are not just fictional stories.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes zachzachzachzach's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: