What Keeps Conspiracy Theories Alive (article)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Josh Heuer

Active Member
Anybody remember state secrets privilege?
Not something really brought up much, but the first example is an alarming example of abuse of power by government.
The gist of state secrets privilege is this:
This is the way government agencies can avoid evidence in court; if it's classified, it can be hurtful to national security and therefore be left out.
The first instance of this happening was obviously an abuse of power though:
This was a pretty clear example of a conspiracy unfolding; the Air Force deliberately lied (claiming secret, damning evidence had to be left out) to avoid taking the blame for their own mistake.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
Grieves,

I call it as I see it. Are you being cheeky with me ;). Or do you deny that these elements contribute to some bunk?
Sure they do. They 'contribute' to all sorts of things. But the 'elements' you list are just generally negative characteristics. They don't actually have anything to do with conspiracy theories one way or the other in any direct sense. A jobless person is no more likely to engage in conspiracy theories than a person with a job... a hateful person is a hateful person regardless of what 'side of the fence' he's on. You've just listed a bunch of characteristics generally considered to be negative, and associated those with conspiracy theories somehow. The obvious implication is that conspiracy theorists are more likely to exhibit generally negative characteristics.
The fact is if one is busy and productive, one would hardly have time to over-think simple concepts and make mountains out of a mole's hill. On the other hand, if one is analytical and sensible, one will not spread bunk without a reasonable and brief analysis.
So a passing interest in a subject outweighs an intense interest in a subject based on the presumption that the person with an intense interest has too much time on their hands, and the person with a passing interest is a busy professional, and thus more learned? Would you describe the questions and suspicions surrounding 9/11 as a 'simple mole-hill'?

If we all jumped on the bandwagon of hearsay, which is what conspiracy theory really is until proven to be factual, we will be left with nothing but a very different ugly witch-hunting - the sky is falling - kind of world to live in.
'Bandwagon' suggests a trend of mass appeal. 'Truthers' and conspiracy theorists in general are in the minority by a considerable margin, and hold opinions that are generally dismissed/mocked/reviled in popular society, not to mention lumped together as one large group, which doesn't make a whit of sense other than as a mechanism through which to polarize and cheapen every discussion of conspiracies in general. This thread is a pretty case-in-point example of that mechanism in action.

But I have this nagging feeling that I'm barking at the wrong tree, Grieves :).
Perhaps, but I'm glad you did. Gives me a good read on where you stand; solid insight into your opinion of yourself, others, and authority.
 
Last edited:

Josh Heuer

Active Member
The ultimate articulation:


The ultimate articulation of what, exactly? Mass genocide? Global conspiracy?
It seems like an individual had a little too much time on their hands and made a video, a very general, vague video about there being large scale conspiracy. It's entirely baseless and really only serves to get the emotional attention of people who feel 'different' about our government.
The point of this video seems be to hook people in emotionally. (Cue music; cue vague dialogue about conspiracy; cue images showing negative things involving our government).

This video does not articulate anything besides the presenters emotions concerning his belief in large scale conspiracy.
 

Alchemist

Banned
Banned
The ultimate articulation of what, exactly? Mass genocide? Global conspiracy?
It seems like an individual had a little too much time on their hands and made a video, a very general, vague video about there being large scale conspiracy. It's entirely baseless and really only serves to get the emotional attention of people who feel 'different' about our government.
The point of this video seems be to hook people in emotionally. (Cue music; cue vague dialogue about conspiracy; cue images showing negative things involving our government).

This video does not articulate anything besides the presenters emotions concerning his belief in large scale conspiracy.
....of the deception. Not necessarily ultimate, it could've been done better. It's cheesy as fuck in some parts. The point being we need to move beyond the smokescreens of false information. We're hypnotized by the movie being projected by the corporate media to the point of being completely unaware of the REALITY movie that's actually playing right before our eyes.
 

jvnk08

Senior Member.
Grieves said:
The thing is, you're generally wrong on most accounts here. Operation Paperclip, MK Ultra, Gulf of Tonkin, Iran/Contra, Operation Northwoods... all were hidden from the American people, covered up or classified as secret by the authorities involved, for years upon years... 30 or more in some cases. That's 30 years of anyone who claimed American intelligence tried to talk JFK into authorizing terrorist attacks on his own people being labeled a cooky conspiracy theorist. There are very obvious attempts to hide their existence from the public, such as by destroying all/most records of the events.

Well, this line of reasoning assumes that these conspiracies were suspected for the entirety of the(in some cases) 30+ years that they were covered up. They also happened before the Internet and ubiquitous data. In the last two decades, it's become harder than ever before in history to keep an ethically or legally questionable enterprise operating airtight within an otherwise legitimate organization(government or otherwise).
 

Brainiachick

Active Member
Sure they do. They 'contribute' to all sorts of things. But the 'elements' you list are just generally negative characteristics. They don't actually have anything to do with conspiracy theories one way or the other in any direct sense. A jobless person is no more likely to engage in conspiracy theories than a person with a job... a hateful person is a hateful person regardless of what 'side of the fence' he's on. You've just listed a bunch of characteristics generally considered to be negative, and associated those with conspiracy theories somehow. The obvious implication is that conspiracy theorists are more likely to exhibit generally negative characteristics.

It is sensible to keep to the point of the discussion. The title of the this thread is simply "What keeps conspiracy theories alive?". I don't believe that covers the scope of what other general ills can result or emanate from joblessness, ignorance, hatred etc. So I kept to the point of the discussion on conspiracy theories and what fuels them or keeps them alive. When you start a thread to discuss what general ills can result from joblessness or to debate the likelihood or propensity of a jobless person to engage in conspiracy theories than an employed person, and if I have an opinion on that subject I will be more than happy to share it. I tend to stick to the point of the discussion and deal with the causative factors rather than dealing with the outcome/symptoms or other peripheral matters.

So a passing interest in a subject outweighs an intense interest in a subject based on the presumption that the person with an intense interest has too much time on their hands, and the person with a passing interest is a busy professional, and thus more learned? Would you describe the questions and suspicions surrounding 9/11 as a 'simple mole-hill'?

An intense interest depending on the level of intensity would surely cost/consume some time. A passing interest is fleeting and less involved. That is not a measure of intelligence or level of education. Rather it is a factor of the level of investment in time and other resources such a person makes in the particular matter. Some of the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 could make Hollywood envious! To be respectful, much of them are utterly fantastical!!

'Bandwagon' suggests a trend of mass appeal. 'Truthers' and conspiracy theorists in general are in the minority by a considerable margin, and hold opinions that are generally dismissed/mocked/reviled in popular society, not to mention lumped together as one large group, which doesn't make a whit of sense other than as a mechanism through which to polarize and cheapen every discussion of conspiracies in general. This thread is a pretty case-in-point example of that mechanism in action.

I think the topic of conspiracy theories, 'Truthers' and their followers is relevant enough and have a bandwagon effect on their followers who do not question or evaluate these far-fetched hypothesis. I see it everyday! So yes, it is a bandwagon effect when people do not question, evaluate and analyse things before moving forward with it.

Perhaps, but I'm glad you did. Gives me a good read on where you stand; solid insight into your opinion of yourself, others, and authority.

You got that right. I'm a little surprised you didn't know where I stood before now. I have a solid and healthy opinion of myself, others, and authority - and that is the very springboard upon which I state facts as I see it. I make no apologies for that.
 

Josh Heuer

Active Member
Well, this line of reasoning assumes that these conspiracies were suspected for the entirety of the(in some cases) 30+ years that they were covered up.
What's the difference? So what if people did or did not know about these conspiracies? This doesn't change the fact that they happened. what's the point?
They also happened before the Internet and ubiquitous data. In the last two decades, it's become harder than ever before in history to keep an ethically or legally questionable enterprise operating airtight within an otherwise legitimate organization(government or otherwise).
How can you be sure? By making this claim, you're saying you know specific data on how many ethically or legally questionable enterprises ARE operating airtight. You can say it's getting harder to operate in this manner but then the burden of proof lies in you proving this fact, and without knowing exactly how many are operating illegally/unethically, there's no way of knowing. Maybe laws have passed to make it, as you say, harder to operate. But how do you know there hasn't been some exponential growth in these type of organizations? There's no way to know this kind of thing and therefore only assumptions can be made.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
How do you know there has been a huge increase? Look at Snowden's revelations, almost all of them were KNOWN by either all or some of Congress. They were not 'secret conspiracies'. The ones you mentioned were not long covered up.

By the way, in the bomber crash, that was mentioned, you cherry picked your facts---Why did you do that?

So, they may not have revealed all the facts, but there was a reason for keeping it secret.

One thing, I found out the hard way, at least it was only in computer game, that it is necessary to keep secrets. Even a trusted player can reveal useful information---he was sort of bragging and made a comment that caused issues for me and another alliance. and yep, we lied to explain the leak. We had to, to keep my guys safe.
 

jvnk08

Senior Member.
What's the difference? So what if people did or did not know about these conspiracies? This doesn't change the fact that they happened. what's the point?

I was responding to this line in particular:

Grieves said:
That's 30 years of anyone who claimed American intelligence tried to talk JFK into authorizing terrorist attacks on his own people being labeled a cooky conspiracy theorist.

I'm not saying the actions are excused because of that, I'm just pointing out we can't extend the "well the conspiracy theorists were right back about ..." to those particular events quite so easily.

How can you be sure? By making this claim, you're saying you know specific data on how many ethically or legally questionable enterprises ARE operating airtight. You can say it's getting harder to operate in this manner but then the burden of proof lies in you proving this fact, and without knowing exactly how many are operating illegally/unethically, there's no way of knowing. Maybe laws have passed to make it, as you say, harder to operate. But how do you know there hasn't been some exponential growth in these type of organizations? There's no way to know this kind of thing and therefore only assumptions can be made.

I base this assumption off of some key facts about the modern Internet. The nature of the Internet has made it easier than ever for sensitive information to be dispersed, willfully or otherwise. Whistleblowers(either aligned ethically against the conspiracy, or simply disgruntled members of it) have more options than ever for getting their information out into the wild anonymously. Additionally, with the state of computer security as it is today(shambles and only getting worse), it's easier than ever for a competitor, malicious actor or even a hacktivist supporting a cause to unearth incriminating information. Compromising systems isn't even necessary in some cases, for example it was revealed that Bank of America was spying on Occupy protesters through contractors simply because the hired talent left their data on a publicly accessible directory of a web server. No "hacking" was needed.

There's also the fact that we have ubiquitous data capture devices in the form of smartphones, CCTV cameras, and other sensors. Audits are also a very effective tool in finding and preventing fraud, waste, abuse & corruption.

Anyways, being on this forum, we are talking about large scale conspiracies(illuminati, NWO, etc) are we not? They seem to be the meat of the matter when discussing what exactly is to blame for the world's woes.

The simple fact that the aforementioned actual conspiracies(Operation Paperclip, MK Ultra, Gulf of Tonkin, Iran/Contra, Operation Northwoods) were uncovered before the Internet came along stands in stark contrast to the notion that there is an overarching, powerful organization running the show from behind the scenes, capable of putting the cat back in the bag so-to-speak by plugging up the media or modifying historical record. If we see those high level conspiracies come to light, which were in fact orchestrated at the highest levels of government(but obviously of much lesser ambition than the movie-like "control the world" hypothesis that a lot of NWO-esque conspiracies boil down to), then how can we reasonably believe that there is a more ambitious, even higher level conspiracy at work? There are simply too many ways for these (hypothetical) vast conspiracies to be exposed for them to carry on for years undiscovered and unabated.
 
Last edited:

Grieves

Senior Member
It is sensible to keep to the point of the discussion. The title of the this thread is simply "What keeps conspiracy theories alive?". I don't believe that covers the scope of what other general ills can result or emanate from joblessness, ignorance, hatred etc. So I kept to the point of the discussion on conspiracy theories and what fuels them or keeps them alive. When you start a thread to discuss what general ills can result from joblessness or to debate the likelihood or propensity of a jobless person to engage in conspiracy theories than an employed person, and if I have an opinion on that subject I will be more than happy to share it. I tend to stick to the point of the discussion and deal with the causative factors rather than dealing with the outcome/symptoms or other peripheral matters.
That's an odd sort of redirect, unless you actually missed my point. Let me phrase it as a question then: Why do you suggest that the generally negative characteristics you listed have anything to do with conspiracy theories/theorists in particular? What's the connection, and how are you making it?
It seems to me like broad presumption of the sort made about nearly anything one considers negative. If we substituted anything else that could be viewed negatively with 'conspiracy theories' in the thread-question, would your answer fail to 'fit'? "What keeps illegal drug use alive?" "What keeps anti-government militias alive?" "What keeps the Occupy movement alive?" "What keeps communism alive?" "What keeps environmental activism alive?" "What keeps Wal-mart alive?"
Your answer could be applied to just about anything/one by someone with a mind to say something negative about that thing/person.


An intense interest depending on the level of intensity would surely cost/consume some time. A passing interest is fleeting and less involved. That is not a measure of intelligence or level of education. Rather it is a factor of the level of investment in time and other resources such a person makes in the particular matter.
Exactly. So a person's level of interest by no means indicates their qualifications, right? And an employed professional of a pertinent field who invests a great deal of their time into an issue would presumably have a firmer grasp of the issue than the similarly qualified person with the fleeting, less involved interest?
Some of the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 could make Hollywood envious! To be respectful, much of them are utterly fantastical!!
All the same, the question stands: do you consider the questions and suspicions surrounding 9/11 to be a 'simple mole-hill', being made into a mountain?



I think the topic of conspiracy theories, 'Truthers' and their followers is relevant enough and have a bandwagon effect on their followers who do not question or evaluate these far-fetched hypothesis. I see it everyday!
Sort of like Arghanistan/Iraq in the aftermath of 9/11, right?



You got that right. I'm a little surprised you didn't know where I stood before now. I have a solid and healthy opinion of myself, others, and authority - and that is the very springboard upon which I state facts as I see it. I make no apologies for that.
Healthy and high, with a tendency to look down on 'lower' tiers, figuratively speaking. Nothing to apologize for, but something perhaps to recognize. The topic of the thread was 'what keeps conspiracy theories alive?' and your answer was to characterize the people who believe in them; that characterization being entirely negative. Your answer to 'What keeps conspiracy theories alive?' thus boils down to 'The people who believe in them', whom you view in a generally negative light.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
The simple fact that the aforementioned actual conspiracies(Operation Paperclip, MK Ultra, Gulf of Tonkin, Iran/Contra, Operation Northwoods) were uncovered before the Internet came along stands in stark contrast to the notion that there is an overarching, powerful organization running the show from behind the scenes, capable of putting the cat back in the bag so-to-speak by plugging up the media or modifying historical record. If we see those high level conspiracies come to light, which were in fact orchestrated at the highest levels of government(but obviously of much lesser ambition than the movie-like "control the world" hypothesis that a lot of NWO-esque conspiracies boil down to), then how can we reasonably believe that there is a more ambitious, even higher level conspiracy at work? There are simply too many ways for these (hypothetical) vast conspiracies to be exposed for them to carry on for years undiscovered and unabated.
When Northwoods, MKultra, Operation Paperclip, ect. came to light, was the CIA disbanded? Did anyone in high office suffer any consequences, at all? You're right, preventing all exposure and suspicion is impossible. Was then, is now. Managing exposure is the real trick, and that's old-hat for the current power-structures. Notice how no one's been prosecuted or even measurably reprimanded for the failures in responding to the impending threat of 9/11? Notice how no one's been prosecuted or even measurably reprimanded for setting America on an illegal warpath for reasons that have been long-since proven false? There's one conspiracy which was revealed and proven factual in rather short order, and yet oddly, no consequences. Condi, who lied to the face of America on multiple occasions, is considered a hero and allowed to plug her books on the Daily Show to raucous applauds. High-ranking members of the 9/11 commission have openly stated they were lied too on multiple occasions, that the administration impeded their progress consistently, and that they were, in fact, 'set up to fail'. And yet somehow, the call for a new and more thorough investigation became 'the cry of the jobless loon', and not the reasonable thing to do when the heads of an investigation are telling you that investigation failed.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
High-ranking members of the 9/11 commission have openly stated they were lied too on multiple occasions, that the administration impeded their progress consistently, and that they were, in fact, 'set up to fail'. And yet somehow, the call for a new and more thorough investigation became 'the cry of the jobless loon', and not the reasonable thing to do when the heads of an investigation are telling you that investigation failed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_9/11_Commission

The problem here is that the "set up to fail" criticism was about suggested covering up of failures in the intelligence community, and basically negligence, combined with not being given open access to highly classified and ongoing intelligence programs.

And yet the truther community continually conflate this with a cover up of a controlled demolition, and the requests for a new investigation are frequently along those lines. Which is why they get a bad rap.
 

Josh Heuer

Active Member
How do you know there has been a huge increase? Look at Snowden's revelations, almost all of them were KNOWN by either all or some of Congress. They were not 'secret conspiracies'. The ones you mentioned were not long covered up.

By the way, in the bomber crash, that was mentioned, you cherry picked your facts---Why did you do that?

So, they may not have revealed all the facts, but there was a reason for keeping it secret.

One thing, I found out the hard way, at least it was only in computer game, that it is necessary to keep secrets. Even a trusted player can reveal useful information---he was sort of bragging and made a comment that caused issues for me and another alliance. and yep, we lied to explain the leak. We had to, to keep my guys safe.

I didn't cherry pick.
FACT: The plane that crashed received a negligible amount of maintenance, which is what was believed to have caused the crash.
FACT: This information (the accident report, more specifically) was not revealed due to the fact that the information would be a risk to national security. The Air Force covered up the cause of a crash (albeit inadvertently, through 'secret information') and can now never be tried for it.

Seems like a loophole? Take the Air Force to court for negligence, oops, no go because that info is secret, now they can't be tried for that crime. Even if they declassify that information after, and it's proves to be against them, it won't matter.

The fact remains that the Air Force (or maybe the commander in charge of maintenance on said craft, the declassified document mentions this individual but not by name) is guilty of some form of negligence that caused the death of 9 people. They covered up something that was in fact a criminal act punishable in court, in the name of national security.
Louis Fisher, in an unrelated case, said it best:
"The 'states secrets privilege' may not shield illegal or unconstitutional activities."
But it still does to this day.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
And yet the truther community continually conflate this with a cover up of a controlled demolition, and the requests for a new investigation are frequently along those lines. Which is why they get a bad rap.
Interesting isn't it? The power a 'bad rap'? Doesn't matter that it's been exposed beyond a shadow of a doubt that the 9/11 commission was a failure, as that exposure has been expertly managed. Those who know it are either lumped in with 'the crazies' or pitted against 'the crazies', and the important thing, that being a new investigation, gets entirely lost in the scuffle. Emotion, drama and rhetoric drowns out the chance for action, until that chance passes by. And this is how it goes.
 
Last edited:

Brainiachick

Active Member
That's an odd sort of redirect, unless you actually missed my point. Let me phrase it as a question then: Why do you suggest that the generally negative characteristics you listed have anything to do with conspiracy theories/theorists in particular? What's the connection, and how are you making it?
It seems to me like broad presumption of the sort made about nearly anything one considers negative. If we substituted anything else that could be viewed negatively with 'conspiracy theories' in the thread-question, would your answer fail to 'fit'? "What keeps illegal drug use alive?" "What keeps anti-government militias alive?" "What keeps the Occupy movement alive?" "What keeps communism alive?" "What keeps environmental activism alive?" "What keeps Wal-mart alive?"
Your answer could be applied to just about anything/one by someone with a mind to say something negative about that thing/person.

Grieves, you are perfectly entitled to your opinion and you can nitpick the argument to suit your purpose and agenda as you wish, however, what remains unchanged is that factors that contribute to something and factors that keep that particular something alive are not exclusive in existence to that something. To make that perfectly clear, if ignorance or over-active imagination keep conspiracy theories alive, there is no rule that prohibits these from keep something else alive. So, with all due respect, your argument is a complete moot point. Your efforts to twist my original point has been duly noted and acknowledged. Nice try.


Exactly. So a person's level of interest by no means indicates their qualifications, right? And an employed professional of a pertinent field who invests a great deal of their time into an issue would presumably have a firmer grasp of the issue than the similarly qualified person with the fleeting, less involved interest? All the same, the question stands: do you consider the questions and suspicions surrounding 9/11 to be a 'simple mole-hill', being made into a mountain?

How long it takes you or how much effort you invest into something is not the sole determining factor of your level of intelligence. You can spend 10 hours studying for an exam and pass in flying colours whilst someone else devotes 10 days to the same exam and does not do as well. My reference to time investment was perfectly clear with regards to your comment on interest, education and intelligence. Again another attempt to twist my original point. However, this point is peripheral to my original post and I see no purpose in pursuing this particular line of argument any further.


Healthy and high, with a tendency to look down on 'lower' tiers, figuratively speaking. Nothing to apologize for, but something perhaps to recognize. The topic of the thread was 'what keeps conspiracy theories alive?' and your answer was to characterize the people who believe in them; that characterization being entirely negative. Your answer to 'What keeps conspiracy theories alive?' thus boils down to 'The people who believe in them', whom you view in a generally negative light.

What keeps conspiracy theories alive? Ignorance, over-active imagination, joblessness, etc etc. Simply put, by the author, these are factors that contribute to keeping conspiracy theories alive. But of course to you they couldn't possibly be factors - they had to be characteristics of the people involved! And they had to be negative. Well that is your opinion and you are entitled to it albeit very skewed indeed.

Healthy opinion of myself? Yes. With a tendency to look down on people? Not my style - quite the contrary if everyone who knows me are correct. Bold and brave? Yes. But I do know that bravery is often mistaken for insanity in WOMEN by some men. 'Lower' tiers of people? Grieves it is very sad indeed that you would even use that word to describe another human. I wouldn't put my life on the line to fight against injustice, corruption and conspiracies in the corridors of power in my country if I had a general negative view of conspiracy theories or those who choose to believe in them. Seeking a balance and evidence in any matter brought before me is my approach. I never discard the theories, but I always seek the evidence of it and analyse the facts before I make decisions that are often irrevocable and have far-reaching consequences for those involved - a point I made quite clearly in my previous post, but which I see you skipped over - and if you have a problem with that, then clearly there is really no point to this discussion because we will never see eye to eye albeit that that was of course not my aim.

Finally, and perhaps more importantly, even though there is a lot I could say to you with regards to how you are perceived on here not just by me, I will refrain from attacking your person as you have mine. I refuse to descend to that level.
 
Last edited:

jvnk08

Senior Member.
When Northwoods, MKultra, Operation Paperclip, ect. came to light, was the CIA disbanded? Did anyone in high office suffer any consequences, at all? You're right, preventing all exposure and suspicion is impossible. Was then, is now. Managing exposure is the real trick, and that's old-hat for the current power-structures. Notice how no one's been prosecuted or even measurably reprimanded for the failures in responding to the impending threat of 9/11? Notice how no one's been prosecuted or even measurably reprimanded for setting America on an illegal warpath for reasons that have been long-since proven false? There's one conspiracy which was revealed and proven factual in rather short order, and yet oddly, no consequences. Condi, who lied to the face of America on multiple occasions, is considered a hero and allowed to plug her books on the Daily Show to raucous applauds. High-ranking members of the 9/11 commission have openly stated they were lied too on multiple occasions, that the administration impeded their progress consistently, and that they were, in fact, 'set up to fail'. And yet somehow, the call for a new and more thorough investigation became 'the cry of the jobless loon', and not the reasonable thing to do when the heads of an investigation are telling you that investigation failed.


So, is the culprit here the CIA, or the people and their representatives? You're kind of suggesting the CIA is an autonomous agency that charts its own course. So, is the CIA an autonomous entity masked as a subordinate federal agency trying to take over the world(on principles coincidentally aligned with the majority of the American public at the time), or are they an intelligence agency trying to achieve the(sometimes vaguely defined or outright impossible) goals we as a society define for them?

We have to keep in mind these entities were created for legitimate purposes. Their overstep of authority can just as easily be explained, more plausibly in my mind, as over-eager, over-funded, gung-ho management attempting to fulfill their mission as defined by (vague or impossible) policy, as it could be orchestrated malicious intent(for what specific goal I'm not sure).

Looking into Operation Paperclip and MKULTRA, one would almost expect such things to be going on with the nature of warfare so radically altered by WWII. I'm not sure if we should mark those down as conspiracies in the same light as the others.
 
Last edited:

Grieves

Senior Member
What keeps conspiracy theories alive? Ignorance, over-active imagination, joblessness, etc etc. Simply put, by the author, these are factors that contribute to keeping conspiracy theories alive. But of course to you it couldn't possibly be factors - they had to be characteristics of the people! And they had to be negative. Well that is your opinion and it is very skewed indeed.
Can you explain what I've skewed? I'm just reading it as-written. Not 'the bad economy' and 'poor education', but joblessness and ignorance. Personal characteristics, not external factors. Being jobless is a characteristic one attributes to a person, is it not? Ignorance is a characteristic one attributes to a person, is it not? An over-active imagination is a characteristic one attributes to a person, is it not? Hatefulness? Boredom? The only item on your list that's not in the most literal sense a characteristic is 'money', and if the big '(LOL).' is any indication, that would seem to equate to greed. And of course they're negative characteristics. No one wants to be jobless, no one likes the hateful, there's something clearly wrong with an over-active imagination, or the word 'over' wouldn't be attached.


Healthy opinion of myself? Yes. Looking down on people? Not my style. 'Lower' tiers of people? Very sad indeed that you would even use that word to describe a human.
You yourself indicated an intellectual divide between those who creatively produce new products (in which you included yourself) and those who don't. Inventors and users, and the negative impact on comprehension being part of the latter group has, was an argument you made and more-or-less stuck by.
I wouldn't put my life on the line to fight against injustice, corruption and conspiracies in the corridors of power in my country if I had a general negative view of conspiracy theories or those who choose to believe in them. Seeking a balance and evidence of in any matter brought before me is my approach. I never discard the theories, but I always seek the evidence of it and analyse the facts before I make decisions that are often irrevocable and have far-reaching consequences for those involved - a point I made quite clearly in my previous post, but which I see you skipped over - and if you have a problem with that, then clearly there is really no point to this discussion because we will never see eye to eye - which of course would not have been my aim.
Are you a Judge? That's the immediate impression you give here. In any event, given the ample evidence the 9/11 commission was a botched effort impeded by the administration at the time, why do you think a more open, independent, thorough investigation with broader authority isn't essential/at least a good idea? If you do think it's a good idea/essential, why not espouse the effort rather than discredit it simply because some others who espouse it believe things you consider to be crazy?

Finally, and perhaps more importantly, even though there is a lot I could say to you with regards to how you are perceived on here not just by me, I will refrain from attacking your person as you have mine. I refuse to descend to that level.
I'm sorry you feel attacked. I'm not by any stretch suggesting you're a bad person. I'm just saying you seem to demonstrate a tendency to generalize in your idea of who conspiracy theorists are, based on a negative preconception as to their character, and a certain sense of superiority. I'm not trying to attack, just observe and share that observation. I don't doubt for a moment you view me in a terribly negative light, and if you want you can PM me and lay it all out in earnest, as barbed as you please. Though I knew of course you're not alone in this view, it's funny to learn it's a distaste discussed to some extent between those who share it. Very conspiratorial. ;)
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
[...]

I will tell you, I have a negative view of those that deny science and facts for the nonsense of their own 'belief system' and even less of those that attack others for not agreeing with that 'belief'. That can be a religious belief, a political one, or one of something else. In the end, the person treats it with same sort of closed mindedness that one sees in some fundamental religions.


[Admin: Politeness edits]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Please refrain from discussing other posters, and try to keep on topic. The topic is "What keeps conspiracy theories alive?", and the Discovery.com article of that name.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
What keeps conspiracy theories alive?
What keeps any theory alive?

There has to be a significant difference between why Einstein's theory of gravity is kept alive, and why Judy Wood's theory of directed energy weapons destroying the WTC is kept alive.
 

Alchemist

Banned
Banned
[...]

I will tell you, I have a negative view of those that deny science and facts for the nonsense of their own 'belief system' and even less of those that attack others for not agreeing with that 'belief'. That can be a religious belief, a political one, or one of something else. In the end, the person treats it with same sort of closed mindedness that one sees in some fundamental religions.


[Admin: Politeness edits]
o_O @ the Orwellian speak in this post

 

Alchemist

Banned
Banned
Unfortunately that video establishes a false premise in the first eight seconds, which pretty much invalidates everything that is said afterwards.
Because they'd rather look at the facts and evidence provided by thousands of unbiased scientists, architects, engineers and other experts instead of NIST investigators (who are affiliated with Department of Defense and had something to gain from spinning the facts to suit a certain agenda) who refused investigate any physical evidence and based all of their conclusions on completely hypothetical computer simulations which were under direct control of biased NIST analysts?
 

Alchemist

Banned
Banned
No. Because they are wrong.

But this is off topic.
I don't mean to sound condescending in anyway but in general scientists have more credibility than bloggers as far as what's right or wrong. (With the exception of that loser you exposed on Joe Rogan Questions Everything... he was a hack, not a real scientist)
 
Last edited:

Brainiachick

Active Member
Can you explain what I've skewed? I'm just reading it as-written. Not 'the bad economy' and 'poor education', but joblessness and ignorance. Personal characteristics, not external factors. Being jobless is a characteristic one attributes to a person, is it not? Ignorance is a characteristic one attributes to a person, is it not? An over-active imagination is a characteristic one attributes to a person, is it not? Hatefulness? Boredom? The only item on your list that's not in the most literal sense a characteristic is 'money', and if the big '(LOL).' is any indication, that would seem to equate to greed. And of course they're negative characteristics. No one wants to be jobless, no one likes the hateful, there's something clearly wrong with an over-active imagination, or the word 'over' wouldn't be attached.


You yourself indicated an intellectual divide between those who creatively produce new products (in which you included yourself) and those who don't. Inventors and users, and the negative impact on comprehension being part of the latter group has, was an argument you made and more-or-less stuck by. Are you a Judge? That's the immediate impression you give here. In any event, given the ample evidence the 9/11 commission was a botched effort impeded by the administration at the time, why do you think a more open, independent, thorough investigation with broader authority isn't essential/at least a good idea? If you do think it's a good idea/essential, why not espouse the effort rather than discredit it simply because some others who espouse it believe things you consider to be crazy?


I'm sorry you feel attacked. I'm not by any stretch suggesting you're a bad person. I'm just saying you seem to demonstrate a tendency to generalize in your idea of who conspiracy theorists are, based on a negative preconception as to their character, and a certain sense of superiority. I'm not trying to attack, just observe and share that observation. I don't doubt for a moment you view me in a terribly negative light, and if you want you can PM me and lay it all out in earnest, as barbed as you please. Though I knew of course you're not alone in this view, it's funny to learn it's a distaste discussed to some extent between those who share it. Very conspiratorial. ;)


"What keeps conspiracy theories alive?" That was the question. My response:

"In my humble opinion some of the things that keep conspiracy theories alive are:

Over active imagination
Joblessness
Boredom
Fame-seeking
Genuine hatred [of a particular subgroup or people eg Jews, Government, Corporates etc]
Ignorance
Money - some manage to make a living off of it (LOL)."


The question was quite clear - what keeps conspiracy theories alive - if you have an opinion share it. If you don't, then that's fine. There is no requirement placed upon you to go on an endless judgemental and character assassination trip. This does nothing other than to derail and detract from the subject matter and perhaps to insult. And quite frankly, it is irritating.

I recognise that not everyone has the ability to be a legal research assistant, but having a personal dislike or problem with certain professions (in this case Judges and the Military) should not be a reason to launch attacks on people you perceive to be in those professions. Just keep to the facts of this topic.

I could say more, but I do not wish to be dragged down 'Bickering Lane' with you and I do not want to violate the politeness policy here and offend other posters. As such, I will not continue this line of dissent with you. But if you feel the compulsion to have the last word and you choose to continue, you will be having a monologue with yourself as I shall politely refrain from responding. My sincere apologies to everyone who has had to read this or anyone who feels that I have offended them. To offend is never my intention or style.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Facts and physics have the most credibility.

However organizations like AE911 actually ARE one of the things that keep conspiracy theories alive. They provide this sheen of plausibility to a theory. You can say "look, this must be right, as all these people with degrees think it is right".

But it's an illusion. Why do you think there's no "Scientists who Agree with NIST" organization?

Why is there a Flat Earth society, but no Spherical Earth society?
 

Alchemist

Banned
Banned
Facts and physics have the most credibility.

However organizations like AE911 actually ARE one of the things that keep conspiracy theories alive. They provide this sheen of plausibility to a theory. You can say "look, this must be right, as all these people with degrees think it is right".

But it's an illusion. Why do you think there's no "Scientists who Agree with NIST" organization?

Why is there a Flat Earth society, but no Spherical Earth society?
Flat Earth Society is most easily compared with the NIST report society... claiming that facts and physics have the most credibility while simultaneously defending impossible conclusions bending the laws of physics (just like with the Warren Commission claiming a bullet can make multiple turns in midair and cause a dozen different wounds). You have it backwards. NIST report is responsible for propagating an illusion based on hypothetical computer simulation bunk rather than physical evidence. Facts and physics mean nothing when you're living in an illusion as evidenced by the masses subjected to the lies of Gulf of Tonkin & the JFK assassination.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Flat Earth Society is most easily compared with the NIST report society... claiming that facts and physics have the most credibility while simultaneously defending impossible conclusions bending the laws of physics (just like with the Warren Commission claiming a bullet can make multiple turns in midair and cause a dozen different wounds). You have it backwards. NIST report is responsible for propagating an illusion based on hypothetical computer simulation bunk rather than physical evidence. Facts and physics mean nothing when you're living in an illusion as evidenced by the masses subjected to the lies of Gulf of Tonkin & the JFK assassination.

There are literally millions of people in the world who are more qualified than the people in AE911

So why do you choose to believe AE911?

AE911 is like the flat earth society because their "opponent" is the reality that is so stunningly obvious to most scientist that they are totally unable to see any need in defending it. There's no "Architects and Engineers for NIST" for the exact same reason there's no "Astronomers for a spherical earth".

Why do you choose AE911? You don't understand the physics involved, so you are simply picking a narrative that appeals to your world view. You are accepting a story, because it just feels right.

Science does not work like that.
 

Alchemist

Banned
Banned
There are literally millions of people in the world who are more qualified than the people in AE911

So why do you choose to believe AE911?

AE911 is like the flat earth society because their "opponent" is the reality that is so stunningly obvious to most scientist that they are totally unable to see any need in defending it. There's no "Architects and Engineers for NIST" for the exact same reason there's no "Astronomers for a spherical earth".

Why do you choose AE911? You don't understand the physics involved, so you are simply picking a narrative that appeals to your world view. You are accepting a story, because it just feels right.

Science does not work like that.
I don't believe. I just by the facts and evidence.

AE911 is unbiased and supported by 9/11 victim family members and they examine actual physical evidence and facts rather than spin hypothetical bunk to suit certain agendas. While NIST report provides hypothetical bunk because that's the only way they can justify their impossible conclusions which violate laws of physics.

Actually NIST's "opponent" is the reality that is so stunningly obvious to most scientists but you never hear about it because it's not in the best interest of the corporate media which serves the same interests who stood to benefit from the attack.

Why do you choose NIST? You don't understand the physics involved, so you are simply picking a narrative that appeals to your world view. You are accepting a story, because it just feels right.

Science does not work like that.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I do understand the physics involved. Hence I know that AE911 are wrong.

And your amusing reversal could not actually work. The corporate media can't somehow make millions of brilliant scientists unable to figure out errors that only Richard Gage can see.
 

Alchemist

Banned
Banned
I do understand the physics involved. Hence I know that AE911 are wrong.
Let's see what a real physicist thinks now:


Here is another physicist who explains how the official story violates the laws of thermodynamics.

And your amusing reversal could not actually work. The corporate media can't somehow make millions of brilliant scientists unable to figure out errors that only Richard Gage can see.
Even if millions of brilliant scientists did figure it out, you wouldn't know about it.

Here's a good example of what happens when the truth goes against the agenda of the interests served by the corporate media:

 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Jeff King was not a physicist, he was a biologist and a doctor. He does not present any actual science in that video.

The problem here is that you are simply assuming he is correct, because he goes against the "official story".

That's another thing that speaks to the OP. Conspiracy theories are kept alive because some people basically find it impossible to admit that the official story might actually be correct. They prefer the alternative simply because it's not the official story - and not because they have actually carefully studied the individual claims.

Why don't you find one scientific objection to the 9/11 OS. Make sure it has not been debunked, and then start a thread on that.
 

Alchemist

Banned
Banned
Jeff King was a doctor? Where did you learn this? Are you sure you're talking about the same person? And what do you have to say about Robert Podolski?
 

Alchemist

Banned
Banned
"Conspiracy theory" term in and of itself is an admitted CIA psyop to prevent people from questioning the status quo as it emerged via declassified documents and FOIL and reported by New York Times and other outlets. The idea that it's IMPOSSIBLE for powerful people to get together and actually plan something is not even your own belief. It's a belief that you've been subjected to.

The idea that Gulf of Tonkin was a total lie (which was used to kill 58,000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese) used to be a crazy conspiracy theory ... now it's been declassified and proven to be a FACT. Are you saying if this was never declassified, those who continued to question Gulf of Tonkin did so MERELY because they want to subscribe to an alternative view?
 

Alchemist

Banned
Banned
And did you actually do any testing and analysis to verify that he was wrong or did you simply assume he was wrong because his conclusions contradict NIST's fairy tale? It's funny how an openly biased government agency's findings which ARE NOT EVEN BASED ON PHYSICAL EVIDENCE is used as a measuring stick for what's right or wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
L Is there an updated or expanded version of the conspiracy theory spectrum? Practical Debunking 2
Rory "Escaping the anti-vax conspiracy rabbit hole" Escaping The Rabbit Hole 0
Rory TFTRH #50 - raised by conspiracy theorists Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 1
Mendel Poll Finds Many Believe QAnon And Other Conspiracy Theories General Discussion 13
Mick West Conspiracy Theories about Senator Kelly Loeffler's Campaign Staffer, 20, Killed in Car Crash. Election 2020 2
Mick West Burst Pipe Conspiracy Theories, Fulton County's State Farm Arena, Georgia Election 2020 20
Mick West Debunks: The Dominion-Venezuela-Smartmatic Vote Theft Conspiracy Theory Election 2020 4
JFDee New York Times: Talking to family members fallen for conspiracy beliefs Practical Debunking 5
T Is it less rational to believe in several conspiracy theories than only one? Conspiracy Theories 31
C Iran promotes anti-semetic conspiracy theories via American Herald Tribune Conspiracy Theories 0
GeorginaB Twitter is banning accounts linked to QAnon conspiracy Conspiracy Theories 1
Agent K Ghislaine Maxwell was arrested in New Hampshire Current Events 11
A Why 9/11 Truthers Are Wrong About The Facts | (Part 1 w/ Mick West) 9/11 1
Mick West Discussing 5G EMF Concerns, Theories, and Conspiracy Theories 5G and Other EMF Health Concerns 15
JFDee 9/11 Conspiracy Idea Slipped into Academic Course Material (France) 9/11 8
Mick West TFTRH #33 – Anthony Magnabosco: Street Epistemology and Conspiracy Theories Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 2
Mick West TFTRH #31: Professor Elizabeth Loftus – Memory and Conspiracy Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 6
Mick West TFTRH #15: Brad - Math vs. Conspiracy Theories Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 21
Mick West TFTRH #13: Professor David Keith – Geoengineering Research and the Chemtrails Conspiracy Theory Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 2
Marin B Facebook moderators believing in conspiracy theories Conspiracy Theories 4
Critical Thinker Russia's role in promoting conspiracy theories General Discussion 20
Rory The Conspiracy Theory Spectrum Practical Debunking 16
Mick West Conspiracy Theory or "Devil Theory" of Politics Conspiracy Theories 0
Mick West Alex Jones Deplatforming and Related Conspiracy Theories Current Events 49
Mick West Paper: How paranoid are conspiracy believers? Practical Debunking 21
Mick West Eruption of Kilauea Volcano in Hawaii – Conspiracies and Science Current Events 34
Mick West Perspective on the popularity of conspiracy theories. Practical Debunking 23
Leifer The Where's Waldo game, and the Conspiracy version. General Discussion 15
qed Roy Moore yearbook signature faked? Conspiracy Theories 111
M Bornong Can Belief in Chemtrails and/or other Conspiracy Theories Lead to Violence? Contrails and Chemtrails 4
G Applications of Game Theory to Assessing the Plausibility of Conspiracy Theories Practical Debunking 1
skephu Solar geoengineering and the chemtrails conspiracy on social media Contrails and Chemtrails 3
DannyBoy2k Are There Any Professional Groups Rebutting 9/11 Conspiracy Theories? 9/11 13
Mick West Explained: Unburned trees next to burned down structures as evidence of secret "energy weapons" Wildfires 122
Cube Radio What British Muslims think about 9/11 Conspiracy Theories 9/11 26
ZoomBubba Las Vegas Massacre - Surveillance Footage? Conspiracy Theories 115
Mick West Debunked: Hurricane Harvey, Project Stormfury, Conspiracy Theories Current Events 40
Mick West Dylan Avery - Director of the 9/11 Conspiracy Film "Loose Change" Escaping The Rabbit Hole 2
Mick West Hurricane Harvey. Cat 4. Major flooding. Conspiracy Theories. Current Events 10
Mick West Consensus Messaging vs. Message Targeting in Science Communication Practical Debunking 16
Mick West 2016 Berlin Truck Attack Conspiracy Theories Current Events 13
Mick West Current Events Forum Guidelines Current Events 0
skephu Changing Conspiracy Beliefs through Rationality and Ridiculing Practical Debunking 25
Marin B Garrett Graff : "Bungling" is a more likely explanation for government conspiracy theories Conspiracy Theories 7
Dick Holman How many people follow multiple conspiracy theories? Practical Debunking 12
Jay Reynolds New Dutch paper Analyzes how Conspiracy Theorists see themselves Conspiracy Theories 3
Mick West Conspiracy? Trump Repeating Falsely Attributed Quote from Russian Media. Conspiracy Theories 26
txt29 Conspiracy Theory: No blood on truck in Nice Conspiracy Theories 34
qed On Skeptoid's definition of Conspiracy Theory General Discussion 15
Mick West When Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence in Conspiracy Theories Practical Debunking 35
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top