The point of conspiracy theories?
- Thread starter zarathustra
- Start date
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
Bad example.
Haven't you see "All The Presidents Men"?
The Watergate incident wasn't uncovered by CTers but by two members of the "intellectual establishment". Woodward and Bersnstein(sp?) worked for the Washington Post (i think
)
This is indeed a poor example. Watergate was the result of some over-zealous minions getting way ahead of themselves, and Nixon then, instead of condeming the idiots for being such, becoming one himself, by trying to cover the whole thing up.fela fan said:
redsquirrel said:Bad example.
Haven't you see "All The Presidents Men"?
The Watergate incident wasn't uncovered by CTers but by two members of the "intellectual establishment". Woodward and Bersnstein(sp?) worked for the Washington Post (i think
No, not a bad example, you just didn't read hammer's post properly!
He wanted to know when the theory became fact, not who the agents were that did this conversion.
zarathustra said:How was it a non-sequitor?
It is bizarre and self-contradictory. To consider that something may have been a conspiracy, you must be a 'conspiracy theorist', by definition. You have the problem of trying to ridicule the ones that you think nonsense, while trying to accept the ones that have been proved correct. The feature of the ones that have been proved correct is that they were first ridiculed, by people like you.
As for your two people who uncovered Watergate, how does the enormously (over twenty years) experienced German Parliamentarian, Cabinet Minister and overseer of the security services Andreas von Bulow in your scheme of things? Conspiracy theorist, or is he one of the intellectuals who just happens to uncover a conspiracy without being a conspiracy theorist? Answers on a postcard!
Ockham's razor, for a start, never seems to be a concern for CTers I've talked to.
The CTers seem to think that Ockham bloke was a bit of a twat.
Actually, Occam's razor is a great concern of mine. I am even concerned with spellling it correctly.
hammerntongues
Well-Known Member
fela fan said:
as others have pointed out Fela , Watergate was certainly a conspiracy but it was not theorised about , it was a conspiracy exposed and never discussed until after it became public ,what I meant was a recognised theory e.g Moon landing ,Kennedy , Diana, Area 51, crop circles, ghosts etc etc.
we should never let our imagination be stifled but in my opinion the CT believers are way too easily led for the sake of a good Hollywood style story
DrJazzz, like most things, there are grades of conspiracy and conspiracy theorists.
The men who uncovered Watergate worked meticulously and uncovered rigorous, compelling evidence.
They are a world apart from the type of armchair pundit like Vialls who neither researches his claims properly or backs them up with real evidence, and passes speculation off as fact.
The men who uncovered Watergate worked meticulously and uncovered rigorous, compelling evidence.
They are a world apart from the type of armchair pundit like Vialls who neither researches his claims properly or backs them up with real evidence, and passes speculation off as fact.
hammerntongues said:
I've given you several and could give loads more but
How about Iran Contra
I'm sure when it was first suggested the CIA was involved in narcotics traffic it was dismissed as CT nonsense
As for nessie, the evidence says it's bullshit. You wouldn't be lumping all CT's together, picking a very silly one and then saying haha look what nonsense these people believe by any chance. Thought so.
Perhaps you can listen very carefully and see if Bush and Cheney are asked about and able to explain the unprecedented intelligence failures prior to 9/11 at the whitewash of an investigation today. You or others may be able to show why my claim that THEY KNEW is false based on this evidence:link
You couldn't get a whole group of doctors over generations to let hundreds of their patients contract a serious disease and by falsifying treatment and diagnosis, let them die, just to watch what happens, could you? Such an outrageous conspiracy theory would have to include far too many people and the people involved would run the risk of jail, surely, and investigative journos would be sure to spot it.
Yet that is precisely what happened in the Tuskeegee syphilis experiment for which Clinton apologised in 1997.
Yet that is precisely what happened in the Tuskeegee syphilis experiment for which Clinton apologised in 1997.
hammerntongues
Well-Known Member
sparticus said:
I didnt say conspiricies don`t exist that would be foolhardy , of couse they do , governments have been keeping things from the people since politics evolved as have other major organisations but the recent trend to link every major unexplained incident on some higher power justs makes me chuckle.
cynical ? yeah all the way but some things just happen because they happen and others because it makes good story.
ps. before it was generally proved otherwise people believed Nessie existed didnt they ? poor example tho because not a conspiracy.
I've never noticed you preferring the simplest explanation. The more baroque the better, on the face of it.DrJazzz said:
Check it out:
19 men + Stanley knives = straightforward
Remote-controlled plane + buildings wired with explosives + Exocet missiles + impersonated relatives + planting of evidence = elaborate.
<strokes chin>
white rabbit said:
No, Occam's razor demands that one discards the official theory - although it is far less challenging to our prior belief systems - because it does not properly fit the available data without all manner of fudges and hand-waving. And rather, the CT - although on the face of it, fantastic - fits the available data like a glove.
e.g.
- no identifiable plane wreckage at the Pentagon.
- nearly all the black boxes lost or data corrupted
- no hijack code broadcast from any flight and all transponders turned off
- hijackers still alive
- no hijackers photographed in a source airport
- many passengers still officially alive after 9-11 including pilots
- two planes still officially flying
- thousands of people vaporise in a building collapse
- utterly bizarre collapse of WTC7 (not to mention the other two)
- complete failure to intercept any one of four flights despite ample opportunity
- Bush talks to 7-year olds for half an hour while all hell breaks loose
the list goes on. All these things require various amounts of contrivation and hand waving on behalf of the official theory yet are nicely explained when one is free to discard the model. Against this stuff we have offered
- some alleged telephone calls
which is the only thing that the official theory has going for it where Occam is concerned.
bollocks...
Too elaborate.
You should get a girlfriend or something.
Too elaborate.
You should get a girlfriend or something.
).kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Ahem Dr J...just on your definition of Occams Razor...
So it has absolutely fuck all to do with ignoring the 'official version' and does in fact say, look for the simplest solution with the least number of actors and actions (in bold)...your explanations are the exact opposite of that...and can you point me in the direction of the sources for each point you've made in your post please?
So it has absolutely fuck all to do with ignoring the 'official version' and does in fact say, look for the simplest solution with the least number of actors and actions (in bold)...your explanations are the exact opposite of that...and can you point me in the direction of the sources for each point you've made in your post please?
sparticus said:
No - though the fact that a particular claimant believes very silly thing A does give pause for thought about the status of their assertions concerning B, C, D...
And of course no-one would argue that the fact that members of interest group X did conspire to do Y is evidence that Z is a conspiracy by the same interest group...
Oh, hang on...
But I'd like to get back to the question. Why? What's in it for them and what do they hope to achieve for everyone?
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Loki said:
Please be arsed - most I can pretty much figure out for myself or from prior threads, but the black box and...well that's about it actually; the 'people, planes and terrs still alive' is just funny - got some video footage of these people pre-and post-9/11?
- no identifiable plane wreckage at the Pentagon. wrong
- nearly all the black boxes lost or data corrupted two fairly large building were destroyed as well
- no hijack code broadcast from any flight and all transponders turned off perhaps because the cabin crew were dead
- hijackers still alive they're not
- no hijackers photographed in a source airport needless elaboration
- many passengers still officially alive after 9-11 including pilots officially, doesn't mean much
- two planes still officially flying officially
- thousands of people vaporise in a building collapse two fairly large building were destroyed as well
- utterly bizarre collapse of WTC7 (not to mention the other two) piledriver effect
- complete failure to intercept any one of four flights despite ample opportunity #4 probably was intercepted.
- Bush talks to 7-year olds for half an hour while all hell breaks loose what, the monkey?
- some alleged telephone calls Which is a bit of a show-stopper, isn't it?
- nearly all the black boxes lost or data corrupted two fairly large building were destroyed as well
- no hijack code broadcast from any flight and all transponders turned off perhaps because the cabin crew were dead
- hijackers still alive they're not
- no hijackers photographed in a source airport needless elaboration
- many passengers still officially alive after 9-11 including pilots officially, doesn't mean much
- two planes still officially flying officially
- thousands of people vaporise in a building collapse two fairly large building were destroyed as well
- utterly bizarre collapse of WTC7 (not to mention the other two) piledriver effect
- complete failure to intercept any one of four flights despite ample opportunity #4 probably was intercepted.
- Bush talks to 7-year olds for half an hour while all hell breaks loose what, the monkey?
- some alleged telephone calls Which is a bit of a show-stopper, isn't it?
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
I think you should go and investigate this a bit more as what you wrote is total bullshit.
Actually you're the one who didn't read the post properly.
AFAIK neither Iran/Contra or Watergate had the type of irrational speculation without facts that 9/11, JFK or the moon landings does.
Can any CTer supply an example which fits hammerntongues critera?
white rabbit said:
Hi Whiterabbit and others
Whilst you may believe that you can and have disproved and explained all of the above points including your favourite the telephone calls (which I could argue about but won't), my argument that 9/11 is a crime (conspiracy if you prefer) involving the USG (and in all probability AlQ as well) rests on none of the above. It rests (as all alternative explanations of 9/11 involving the USG must) on THEY KNEW and THEY LIHOP. By deliberately not responding and allowing the attacks to happen is as outrageous and criminal as if they had guided remotely or hijacked the planes themselves or any other active participation scenario.
LIHOP is a crime of the highest intentional order every bit as serious as the USG doing it all themselves. However LIHOP requires none of the above evidence. The story can be exactly according to the official version including it was the planes that made the towers including WTC7 collapse, the hijackers are all the people named, the passengers really did make those phone calls, it was a plane and not a missisle that hit the pentagon, etc but with 2 exceptions
1) They are lying when they say they did not see this coming (see the evidence from mainstream news sources on the link in my last post)
2) They are lying when they say incompetence explains the inexplicable when it comes to the time line of events, the speed of response and the failutre to implement standard operating procedures. Whose incompetence and why have they not been reprimanded.
So if you really want to put alternative scenarios of 9/11 to bed once and for all show me how the evidence I keep referring to Nafeez's book (and to be found elsewhere) demonstrating THEY KNEW and LIHOP is wrong, false or contradicted by other evidence (perhaps by the testimony of Bush and Cheney today, or then again maybe not)
Thanks any way for sticking to the evidence
Ian
zarathustra
(b)anal spoonerisms
DrJazzz said:
Well if that's what Laptop meant that I read him/her incorrectly and I agree it's a non-sequitor.. from Laptop's other posts though I doubt he/she meant it in the way you're taking it. But that's not my battle.
What would it take to prove your theory wrong exactly, Dr J? Convince me that falsification exists within the paradigm of the CT.
People like me? Evidence?
Both spellings are correct.. if you're going to patronise me, think before you post.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Ockham
Also it would be nice if you actually addressed the point rather than making bitchy and ill-thought-out comments...
Loki said:
Oh loki, bloody come on! I won't even read to the end of the thread before replying to this.
Get that bloody vialls out of your vocabulary. There are many people out there meticulously uncovering stuff on 911. Watergate has the advantage of history, 911 is unfolding. Uncomparable. You do a disservice to those spending inordinate amounts of time trying to get to the bottom of 911, just as those two journos did, in the midst of a lot of inertia, to put it kindly.
Fuck man, get real with your comparisons. If there's two words that have developed more ability to fuck up threads on urban it's vialls and CTs.
Now that Paul Thompson man i pointed you towards earlier today must have worked his fucking socks off to get that website where it is. Stop writing the likes of him off by quoting 'vialls'. The research he's done must have run into thousands upon thousands of hours.
Don't judge the facts till they've been uncovered.
hammerntongues said:
No hammer, what you meant was quite clear: when did theory become fact. And Watergate was a good example of this. All the cover ups, all the denials, all the destroying of evidence, all the accusations, all the wriggling, all the political manipulations. Watergate had it all. Uncovered by sterling work from a couple of journos who worked in the face of all manner of obstacles.
Even to the end nixon managed to escape impeachment.
This was a conspiracy by the government, or parts of it, that finally got uncovered with hard and fast proof. There are those that belive 911 will eventually have a similar outcome. Including me. I charge that the Bush administration are just as guilty of state crimes that nixon was. We just don't have the luxury of it being history yet.
Now admit it, the theory was there, then there was a load of detective work. And then there was fact.
Similar threads
