The Validity of Conspiracy Theories
- Thread starter ska invita
- Start date
ZWord said:
No you do not have a player. I am not arguing the toss over the details of 9/11 for the next four hours. What I'm talking about is the nature of conspiracy theory.
No evidence=fuckspud ramblings of a demented loon.
Without evidence how do you differentiate between
1)fuckspud ramblings of a demented loon
2) a plausible and credible arguement.
What method do you propose to differntiate between the two?
editor said:
Well maybe there are other reasons why people like this site apart from your stance on conspiralunacy, it was popular before you began your mission, I reckon.
In any case, I don't have a problem with you challenging fantastic yarns. I just don't see why you have to bin them. I'm just trying to defend the possibility of theorising without hard evidence, and seeing if other people have come to the same conclusions. All the same, I do think that as conspiraloons are very much in a minority here, there's no real risk of the site being dominated by conspiralunacy. If it's obviously a load of nonsense, it should soon end up being ignored. Maybe it's not really stuff that needs to be debated, it's just bigfish's column if you like, and perhaps there are a few people who are interested in the new things he's discovered.
But I was wondering if you'd tell me whether you personally believe that it was Osama and alquaeda, and by the way, if you like, what you think of the collected yarns of Charles Fort.?
zed66 said:
Well I'm inclined to say, hmm, "your guess is as good as mine?"
Not sure I believe that. But at least it's egalitarian. The corollary being that my guess and bigfish's is as good as yours.
Apart from that, I guess you can only consider the intellectual character of the person you're dealing with.
As far as I can see by your own arguments, most of what you've said recently is fuckspud ramblings of a demented loon. But I wouldn't say that, not at all. But I don't think you're doing a very good job of substantiating your point of view. First of all you said you didn't have an opinion. Now you seem to be saying you do have one, but you won't substantiate it.
As far as I can tell, despite your apparent unwillingness to be pinned down, you seem to believe that it was Osama etc what done it. I guess you must have some evidence for this, given your strong stand in demand of hard evidence before opinion-forming., I'd love to know what it is. But I guess you won't tell us. Probably everyone knows it. Except me.
zed66 said:
So that's settled then. There is NO EVIDENCE that any of the 19 alleged hijackers were ever in any of the targeted airports on the morning of Sept 11, but you believe it was Osama's boys wot done it! I guess that means when we apply your own criteria to you, then what you say must also be the fuckspud ramblings of a demented loon! Otherwise show me some PROOF of Atta actually being in Logan airport that morning?
bigfish said:
The point I am making, and have consistently made is that evidence is one method of differentiating between what is and what isn't a credible arguement. I think (and I have to emphasise here that this is a matter of personal opinion), that the consensus of judgement concerning any historical event varies according to the time after the event and there is no way of knowing all the facts. Take WWII for example. The amount of information available to historians increased massively after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the ability to access documents previously unreleased. Over a fifty year period documents have become available to Bristish historians under the 30 and 50 year rules which have shed new light on specific episodes. How's this for a theory on 9/11 - I don't/cannot know beyond doubt what happened
and I suspect the actual details of the event will continue to be revised for at least the next 50 years if not more.
editor said:
I'm not interested, under the circumstances, in what the police have stated about this alleged footage, I'm interested in seeing it for myself.. as too I'm sure, are the families of those who have been accused.
As an old campaigner for justice, I would've thought that you would be keener than most to ensure that a grave injustice, similar to the fitting up of the Birmingham Six or the Guildford Four, is not being committed here by war mongering forces within the state.
zed66 said:
Sounds reasonable to me. And the corollary (if that's the right word) of that, is that you can't know beyond doubt what didn't happen, so you've no good reason to criticise even theories that are apparently utterly bizarre, except prejudice. (Though I myself have trouble with invisible missiles. I suspect that was one of DrJazzz whose role seems to be to defend theories that most people find ridiculous, which muddies the waters a bit. )
Evidence is one way of differentiating between credible and incredible arguments. There are others. Most historians actually use a little evidence and a lot of inference and conjecture. It's an art, not a science.
editor
hiraethified
It's not a "mission", so you can quit the cheap attempts at misrepresentation for starters.ZWord said:
The editorial decision to bin tiresome 9/11 threads was no different to the decision to bin kitten threads or any other threads repeating the same old shit over and over again.
I'm under no obligation whatsoever to host 'bigfish's column'.ZWord said:
Funny thing was, if I believed as passionately in conspiraloonery as much as he does, I would strarted my own site years ago rather than having to endlessly put up with the terrible 'censorship' at urban75.
My opinion on events has been posted all over these boards many times and I have no inclination to repeat them for your benefit, although I note that you're something of a wriggler when it comes to expressing your own opinion. Why is that?ZWord said:
editor
hiraethified
Ah, so you're posting up your wild evidence-untouched inflammatory 'theories' for the benefit of the families, eh?!!!bigfish said:
I would have thought they'd rather hear - and challenge, if necessary - all the evidence presented in the correct manner at the appropriate time (i.e. at the inquest), but I'd be delighted to hear why you think your wild, fact-free ruminations might be of any help to them.
Interesting to note that that you're lumping the case of the suspected bombers in with the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four, too.
Could you highlight the parallels for me please?
editor said:
Well I didn't know what to describe it as except a mission. Honestly, no offense, but you do seem to show a fair amount of zeal in this department as compared to generally, not that I mind. I'm sure it's all to the general good of the site. I honestly don't know what you think.
Something of a wriggler. Because I said, "I don't know."?
Honestly, that's more or less where I'm at the meoment.
But if you're really interested. When it first happened, I generally believed that it was Osama and al-qua eda, But I was struck by some odd coincidences, to do with music I heard round the time, and other things.
And I heard early on that there was this thing about frenzied trading in airline shares before the event, implying that a lot more people knew about it than ought to. But I discounted that, for simplicity's sake. And then I kind of heard a whole variety of conspiracy theories that I wasn't terribly interested in, until I eventually understood that originally Osama was the CIA's man in Afghanistan, at which point I got a bit more interested. And I got a lot more interested once these utterly unlikely videos of him came out. But at the same time, I reckoned that probably all these theories were way off, and were just busy trying to explain the inexplicable, and ride on a situation of so much political import and so much deception that any knowledge was impossible.
But in the same way, at the time. I thought of Blair and Bush as just evil incarnate, whereas now I reckon they're kind of roleplayers, so the idea that they were in on it is not unthinkable. But I don't believe that. I've honestly come to the conclusion that knowledge on this matter is impossible.
Obviously the reality I live in is very different from yours. Though it's strange that, as it is the same reality. But I've seen enough strange shit in my life to find not much unthinkable, and to no longer be surprised at the most outrageous coincidences and bizarrenesses. Which is why I kept mentioning the collections of Charles Fort. If you find this helps you, if you want to dismiss me as an obvious lunatic who believes in strange shit, well fine. I don't much care.
I don't have an opinion. But I have lots of possibilities in mind. Some of which are crazier than any you've ever heard probably. But I'm not committed to any of them. I still don't know for certain why you're so committed to your knowledge, and I often wonder if you are really. It seems unlike you.
editor
hiraethified
Yep. Your posts here clearly suggest you have very strong opinions that the official version is untrue, so why be so coy?ZWord said:
What music? What 'other things'? What are you on about?ZWord said:
Really? Like what, perhaps?ZWord said:
Gosh. What a personal and intimite reflection for a poster with just 153 posts to their name. Exactly how might you know what I am like and not like?ZWord said:
Well I've been reading the site since 2000, I've been writing on it for at least three years. And I've met you once in a pub near London Fields in Hackney.
Don't see why you need to be so hostile. Sorry to have got your back up. As to the rest, PM me if you're really interested and really don't know.
Oh yes, the music. I'll put that up here at least.
I was generally listening to galaxy 101, and in the month of August and September before 911, every time I put it on, I heard the same tune.
"Oh tell me why do we build castles in the sky.?..."
never once heard it after 911.
Actually, on second thoughts, I guess you're right, maybe I don't really know you, it was just a spur of the moment comment.
Don't see why you need to be so hostile. Sorry to have got your back up. As to the rest, PM me if you're really interested and really don't know.
Oh yes, the music. I'll put that up here at least.
I was generally listening to galaxy 101, and in the month of August and September before 911, every time I put it on, I heard the same tune.
"Oh tell me why do we build castles in the sky.?..."
never once heard it after 911.
Actually, on second thoughts, I guess you're right, maybe I don't really know you, it was just a spur of the moment comment.
editor said:
The police HAVE NOT released any CCTV footage clearly showing the 4 Yorkshiremen arriving at Kings Cross or of 3 of the men boarding the targeted underground trains. Therefore there is NO PROOF, which I am aware of, that they ever did arrive or that they boarded any of the trains, and so your idea that there is proof, is merely an unproven theory that you urgently need to substantiate, otherwise you may find yourself falling into the trap of believing in a mythological, "evidence-untroubled" narrative, like you did last time.
Well I would have thought, given the noted increase in racist attacks against Muslim which have themselves been stimulated and encouraged by Bliar and his band of war mongering accomplices in the establishment apparatus and the corporate media, and given also the British governments demonstrable past propensity for fitting-up innocent people for terrorist crimes that they didn't commit, that the families may very well not be as well disposed toward the British establishment as you seem to be.
Why, are you blind?
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Where are they, then?bigfish said:
editor
hiraethified
Correct. But the Police have clearly said that THEY HAVE SEEN the footage, so the time to start cooking up bonkers conspiracy theories is when they fail to reveal the footage at the appropriate time, not before.bigfish said:
Compared to what you're seeing through your Conspiraloon Glasses, I'm up there in the laser-vision stakes, chum.bigfish said:
But do tell. With all your talk of stitch ups and conspiracies, what do you think really happened?
Conspiranoids are getting worked up about the unaccountable failure of the police to release video just for them. (I typed "to please them" but if it were released it wouldn't please them, would it?)
This illustrates the conspiracy-contstruction method:
Then there's the "meanwhile, back in the real world" aspect - not unlike the "how many people would it take to construct and maintain cover-up X?" angle.
The police are a bit busy at the moment. If they are satisfied that the 7 July bombers are dead, they have other priorities, like finding potential future bombers. It would be foolish of them to allocate more than a token effort to something that can be sorted out later.
This illustrates the conspiracy-contstruction method:
- Leap to conclusion;
- Search for anything resembling an "inconsistency" in the realists' account;
- Aha! Conclusion "proved".
- Direct other conspiranoids' attention toward the "inconsistency" and away from other evidence.
BBC said:
Then there's the "meanwhile, back in the real world" aspect - not unlike the "how many people would it take to construct and maintain cover-up X?" angle.
The police are a bit busy at the moment. If they are satisfied that the 7 July bombers are dead, they have other priorities, like finding potential future bombers. It would be foolish of them to allocate more than a token effort to something that can be sorted out later.
editor
hiraethified
That'll be under a different name then, won't it?ZWord said:
Do you expect me to remember the identities of the thousands of members who have come and gone over the years? Or people I've met once in a pub years ago?!
But the real problem I'm having is that your opinions expressed here completely contradict what you've elected to tell me by (unsolicited) PMs and that sends off rather worrying alarm bells along the lines of "returning poster+chumsiness = troll"
editor said:
Don't ask!
- Bundled onto a remote-controlled plane and...
- Locked into the Scientologists' HQ and...
- Were MI5 assets all along and now holidaying in...
- Were holograms all along
- Were played by actors after the actual people of those names were abducted by
- aliens
- Scientologists
- MI6
- CIA
- Mossad
- Lizard House at London Zoo.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
They're involved in a restaging of Capricorn One.
editor said:
Why should we have to wait for some unspecified time in the distant future when the material could be released now and without prejudice, as all of the men are supposedly dead? The police release CCTV footage of suspected criminals all the time to various media, like the BBC's Crime Watch show, for example.
What, you want me to speculate, so that you can then begin demanding proof as per your usual sophistic and extremely tedious approach to debate? No thanks.
editor said:
No I don't expect you to remember. I was just explaining myself. In any case, I expect you're right, I don't really know you and was quite out of place to make observations about your character.
All I said in the PM's was I'm glad you take the stance you do. I find this debate entertaining, I've been enjoying it. I was thinking it's worth having. I was thanking you, and I suppose trying to find out where you were coming from. . I guess you couldn't take what I said in Pm's at face value. But I don't see how it contradicts what I've expressed here in any way.
Honestly, earlier, I was wondering if you take this dogmatic viewpoint just to add fuel to the debate. Seriously, when people try to suppress viewpoints they disagree with, I just end up thinking, well maybe there is something to this viewpoint to make it worth suppressing, but that's just as much an observation about my character as it is about what you're doing. I find most of what Bigfish says possible and well-argued. I probably haven't read as much of it as you have. But I still don't understand why if you find it so ridiculous you don't just ignore it. I know you generally say you're defending your site from being dominated by conspiratastic nonsense, but I just don't see any danger of that happening. Most people seem to share your certainty. I wish I did. It would make life simpler for sure.
editor
hiraethified
I'd rather you just shut the fuck up with your endless fact-free conspiracy knee jerk fantasies until some evidence has been produced, actually.bigfish said:
In all of the years you've been posting your wild yarns here, not one of your 'theories' has ever been proved to have been correct.
PS So what happened to the four suspected bombers from 7th July if they didn't board the trains, then?
Any chance of an answer?
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
That's before people have been charged. The footage relating to 7/7 is less easily released since it may prejudice the trials of the defendants in (say) the 21/7 cases.bigfish said:
Your point about being attacked for speculating would carry more weight if speculating wasn't, so often, what you actually do.
I imagined this dialogue last night. A couple of ancient greeks disputing.
-You know, I've been thinking about the recent outbreak of plague across the city, and I had this idea, maybe these people who think it's all a divine judgment or case of fate or evil spirits are totally wrong.
-What are you talking about?
-Well I was thinking, you know how you can get infested with fleas or lice, maybe there are creatures that are so small that you can't even see them that live in your blood, and there's loads and loads of them, and they breed really fast, and they suck the life out of you.
- Sounds ridiculous, but go on..
-Well maybe we should stop petitioning the gods, or trying to ward it off with sacrifices, and put some energy into trying to find a way to detect these creatures, and kill them off.
-I just don't believe you, you imagine a vast conspiracy of invisible beasties that no one can see killing people, when all the expert opinion says that it's caused by evil spirits. What's your evidence for it?
-Well I don't have any, I can't see how we can find some.
- So you come to me with your outlandish tales, dredged up out of your imagination, and not only do you waste my time with tales of creatures that no-one can see but yet are powerful enough to kill people, you actually propose that I should waste my time and investigate it.
You are mad.
-You know, I've been thinking about the recent outbreak of plague across the city, and I had this idea, maybe these people who think it's all a divine judgment or case of fate or evil spirits are totally wrong.
-What are you talking about?
-Well I was thinking, you know how you can get infested with fleas or lice, maybe there are creatures that are so small that you can't even see them that live in your blood, and there's loads and loads of them, and they breed really fast, and they suck the life out of you.
- Sounds ridiculous, but go on..
-Well maybe we should stop petitioning the gods, or trying to ward it off with sacrifices, and put some energy into trying to find a way to detect these creatures, and kill them off.
-I just don't believe you, you imagine a vast conspiracy of invisible beasties that no one can see killing people, when all the expert opinion says that it's caused by evil spirits. What's your evidence for it?
-Well I don't have any, I can't see how we can find some.
- So you come to me with your outlandish tales, dredged up out of your imagination, and not only do you waste my time with tales of creatures that no-one can see but yet are powerful enough to kill people, you actually propose that I should waste my time and investigate it.
You are mad.
Similar threads
