How did I end up down here?

qed

Senior Member
I came to a point where I felt the Boston bombing had to be a conspiracy. That no one was really injured. That actors performed the event. I really thought that I had seen evidence that was impossible to refute. Hence I came here to Metabunk.

I no longer feel this way. I do not think the "evidence" demonstrates a conspiracy.

I always asserted that the trial would establish the issue either way (because such a huge lie would be impossible to contain). The difference is that now I expect the trial will go ahead and that Dzhorkhar will be found to have done it with his brother. I am not expecting the defense to argue that Dzhorkhar did not do it (I know the defense has argued "not guilty", but I expect this will be despite agreeing that he did plant the bomb).

Members please feel free to interrogate me.
 
Tipping point 1

The conspiracy sites immediately began arguing that the Nairobi shopping center attack was a Zionist false flag by the same people who "bought us" the Boston bombing. This sat very badly with me.

Tipping point 2

You demonstrated that Karen's x-ray coincided with the blood marks in a photo of her at the scene. Three injuries in the x-ray coincide precisely with blood locations in the photograph. So at least one person was really injured at the scene. At that point I could no longer hold onto the actors theory.

  • Not able psychologically to quite give up, I slipped to thinking that the brothers were not guilty. Of course this is still a conspiracy position, just a different one.

Tipping point 3

@deirdre demonstrated to my satisfaction that Dzhorkhar arrives with a backpack, is very close to the site of the blast, leaves without the backpack, and that this backpack is consistent with the exploded backpack at the scene.

Tipping point 4

I have read that the not-guilty plea is going to be based on not-guilty because of undue influence by his brother, as opposed to not guilty because of not planting the bomb.

Gradual shift

I really do understand that a conspiracy is very difficult to contain. Falsehoods (lies) are dynamic, generating contradictions that require more lies, etc. Because I thought this conspiracy was true, I was expecting it to unravel, and soon. It did not. And I am expecting it won't.

  • I have to admit that once in the hole, my emotions/psychology made it very hard to pull out.
 
What's the most extreme conspiracy theory that you think is true?

I am assuming this is not a trick question, and so assume you mean a currently unproven conspiracy theory:).

Because of the deep investigation Al Jazeera has put into the issue, I feel there may be a true conspiracy around the Lokerbie bombing.

I do not think that "chemtrails", the moon, 9-11, or Sandy Hook, are true conspiracy theories.
 
Am I being irrational, in the light of the Al Jazeera reports and Guardian articles, to feel that, perhaps, the Iranians rather than the Libyans blew up this plane?

Am I still in the Rabbit Hole?
 
Am I being irrational, in the light of the Al Jazeera reports and Guardian articles, to feel that, perhaps, the Iranians rather than the Libyans blew up this plane?

Am I still in the Rabbit Hole?
I have no idea what youre talking about, so I don't know if youre being irrational. But you kinda are being OT ; ) sounds like a new thread topic.
 
@deirdre

I did not expect @Mick West to ask that question.

What's the most extreme conspiracy theory that you think is true?

I thought we might, rather, unpack the psychology that led me down this hole (to be honest, I jumped:oops:)

I was taken aback at the question, but, in a sense, it was valid. "Am I still/really a conspiracy theorist?"

I deleted my immediate response, which was "The overthrowing of the democratically elected president of Iran", given the Rambling of Established? US and UK conspired and overthrew Prime Minister of Iran.
  • Instead I thought about the question honestly and told the forum the truth.
It was not easy being honest. I contemplated saying "I don't think any conspiracy theories are true." I did.

sounds like a new thread topic.

I took your advice and started the thread but it has been rambled.

This is a possibly true real time conspiracy theory. If true, the truth will come out, maximum 40 years from now when the British 60 year mandatory release of all documents come up.

I do not entertain "chemtrails", 9-11, Sandy Hook, etc. I have owned up to being completely wrong about Boston. I do not hang at conspiracy web sites. I read the main stream media, the Guardian and Al Jazeera mainly.
  • Do you think it is irrational for me to think that the Libyans might not have done it, i.e., that possibly this conspiracy theory is true?
 
Do you think it is irrational for me to think that the Libyans might not have done it, i.e., that possibly this conspiracy theory is true?
"me"? I don't follow war type stuff. but back to topic- (analyzing you ; ) do you believe in any conspiracies that don't involve bombs? just cause I'm wondering why you though Boston was a false flag and not sandy hook. do you think aurora is a false flag? < just curious.
 
Do you think it is irrational for me to think that the Libyans might not have done it, i.e., that possibly this conspiracy theory is true?

Kind of semantic. Because there are many shades irrationality. Determining if your thoughts are irrational can only be done based on how much you know. Irrationality is a failure of logic and reasoning, so you can have totally legitimate logical, well reasoned conclusions based on what you know (or think you know).

Where it would become irrational would be if your reasoning was highly illogical, or if you were ignoring facts, or giving undue weight to one source.

But since we don't know the sum total of what you know, it can be hard to give labels like "irrational".

That's partly why I focus on individual claims of evidence.
 
"me"? I don't follow war type stuff. but back to topic- (analyzing you ; ) do you believe in any conspiracies that don't involve bombs? just cause I'm wondering why you though Boston was a false flag and not sandy hook. do you think aurora is a false flag? < just curious.
Boston was my first and only (in the category I think we understand each other to mean).

I stumbled into Boton when the photos were released on Cryptome, which I follow. I was alerted to the conspiracy as one that geeks has proven to be true. The geek in me then jumped down the hole.

I have no ### idea what aurora is? I heard about "chemtrails" and Sandy Hook for the first time on Metabunk. I watched 9-11 real time, and have no doubt who did it and why? Learn't a lot here about why the buildings came down that I did not know before.
 
Aurora is another mass shooting. That Holmes man with 'The Joker' hair.
I have come to hate peddlers of these theories since coming to Metabunk (to be debunked, thanks:oops:). I had never met them before my time in Boston. I can at least claim to have only believed one false conspiracy theory. These #####s peddle them all. The sick irony in a name like nodisinfo which serves to actively dis-inform. Similarly for The Center for an Informed America.

The alternative media, like the Guardian (whatevs), Al Jazeera (move to a democracy) and RT (hmmm), at least do their best to present the truth.

Conspiracy peddlers like nodisinfo and The Center for an Informed America actively deliver falsehoods. They earn income by tricking folks into lies. I have learned about many others here. I hate them!

But why was I fooled by them? I must have wanted to be fooled!
 
Back
Top