Boo - 18 July 2006 08:51 AM

Thunder, please, please tell me that this isn’t the ‘Loose Change’ DVD you’re talking about…

no, I can’t remember what the other one was called, but weirdly, I’ve been shown that one too lol. why?

the other one got to the point alot quicker than loose change

Et Tu, Brute….

* snifle *

thunder - 18 July 2006 08:47 AM

yeah, I know, I looked into some stuff afterwards however and some of it did seem very true. I know people manipulate things to help themselves or for sadism or whatever but this one seemed different from other’s I’ve seen. There were some interesting points on it, such as the fact that even though there was no large plane wreckage to be seen because the heat vapourised it, one little passport was found that survived the heat? And about a week before the attack on the pentagon, there were white markings on the grass almost exactly where the plane was supposed to have hit.

hmm, I know I don’t know everything, and I’m not screaming conspiracy theory, but there are a couple of points I’m doubting.

That’s exactly how a lot of these theories survive and thrive, Thunder.  They present a lot of false information (such as the claim about an absence of aircraft wreckage) or present information in such a manner as to make it look suspicious (such as making a fuss about the passport that was found, even though other personal papers from the passengers were found intact as well), and they give you this information in a persuasive way and hope that you don’t actually do any checking of the facts yourself.  Then they also make certain that they make their theories easily and abundantly and repeatedly available, so that much of the information that anybody who does do research finds is the information provided by the conspiracy theorists, and the sheer volume of it all tends to lend weight to their arguments.

You’ll also often find that with conspiracy theorists, there will usually be only a small number of really vocal ones who start their own websites or make videos or whatever.  But these people will constantly cite each other and refer to each others’ work, creating sort of a looping network of references that makes them look more legitimate and more supported.

Then there’s the form of logic that they commonly use, where if any single part of something isn’t answered completely by the official story, then that means that the entire official story is false and that the conspiracy must therefore be true.

Yes, there are conspiracies, and there are quite a few conspiracy theories that do contain at least a bit of truth in them.  But a lot of them are also complete nonsense.

Accipiter - 19 July 2006 07:06 AM

That’s exactly how a lot of these theories survive and thrive, Thunder.  They present a lot of false information (such as the claim about an absence of aircraft wreckage) or present information in such a manner as to make it look suspicious ...................
.....................Yes, there are conspiracies, and there are quite a few conspiracy theories that do contain at least a bit of truth in them.  But a lot of them are also complete nonsense.

The best way to describe all this in a nutshell is ‘gossip’ or at least the way we used to view it.  When we were kids we played a game where one person whispered a statement into the ear of their neighbor who would in turn take what they ‘heard’ and whispered it along to the person next to them.

By the time the first whispered statement traveled down the line of whisperers, the statement was not the same at all:  quite a lot of stuff had been added, other stuff subtracted and the embellished final story was longer and certainly more interesting. 

It’s human nature to paint and glorify…..we do it so very well

Re:  David’s post, above

Makes pretty good sense!

But in the case, say, of NASA faking the moon shot, you would sure have a lot of technicians, etc, who would have to be in on it.  That would be pretty hard to do, expecially becasue these are the ‘Boy Scout’ types, who would never perpetrate the hoax (of a fake moon shot).

But yes, in case of Oklahoma City, or the London Train Bombings, or 911, you are very astute in your analyses, lay it all out and just let the conspiracy theorists destroy their own credibility.

There are many rational people here in the US who have noted that about 42 (really!) 42 people once associated with the Clintons have died mysteriously, often in plane wrecks, like Ron Brown, the beleagured Secretary of Commerce.  Of course, the idea of the President of the United States having his enemies murdred is ludicrous, right?  So it would therefore be very easy to pull off, only a madman or loony would think you really did it!

Dan the sincere Admirer of Dave’s postings, at least usually

Is this list what you’re referring to, Dan?

Boo’s linked list:  http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/clinton.htm

I

Charybdis - 17 July 2006 01:41 PM

Dan, your tortured logic is killing me here.

Uhh, so that I can improve myself, could you explain?

Dan the Logic-Torturer

I can’t fill in all the 911 details but it’s extremely obvious that a demolition company couldn’t be called and then travel to WTC 7 in the chaos, conduct a structural analysis, and then set up a perfect implosion by 4:00 PM, when everyone was told to move away from WTC 7.  Silverstein lied about when the explosives were placed there.  A massive insurance payout was likely a motive, and perhaps also the destruction of the money laundering investigation records stored in the building. 

Inquisitor

If anybody wants to start debating the reality of what happened on 9/11 (or if they want to read a bunch of people with too much time on their hands arguing and arguing and arguing), they can wade through all the stuff in the “Flights 77 and 93 Were Shot Down” thread or else the “The Official 9/11 Story Is A Hoax” thread.  We don’t need this one here to degrade into yet another such topic.