Are there any credible conspiracy theories?

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

I can't believe, or bring myself to believe, that a passport can survive a fireball.

If you are referring to 9/11, that's a perfect example of argument from incredulity. The passport did survive the plane impacts (not just that, but other passports, identity cards and perishable items survived)

But in your mind, "it's impossible", despite it being a fact, therefore it "can't have happened".

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

You didn't say that. You said that asking questions was an attempt to cast doubt on a narrative and hint at an alternative explanation, i.e. a conspiracy.

Same thing. Let's take an event like the moon landing. Conspiracy theorists don't present some theory build from the ground up with credible evidence and a solid timeline, they don't do that because they can't..

What they can do is get you to doubt the event. They use all sorts of tricks and techniques to frame info (disinfo) in such a way to make you start to seriously doubt it, to make it "impossible" in your head. Once that's done, they don't have to even provide a credible alternative theory. "It was shot in a studio somewhere" will do.

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Same thing. Let's take an event like the moon landing. Conspiracy theorists don't present some theory build from the ground up with credible evidence and a solid timeline, they don't do that because they can't..

What they can do is get you to doubt the event. They use all sorts of tricks and techniques to frame info (disinfo) in such a way to make you start to seriously doubt it, to make it "impossible" in your head. Once that's done, they don't have to even provide a credible alternative theory. "It was shot in a studio somewhere" will do.

Seems to me that you lack the confidence in your own powers to make up your mind about something. You fear being made to believe something that you don't want to so you don't even want to go there. You take outlandish episodes like flat eartherism and lump them in with perfectly plausible ones like the possibility the the Skripal hit didn't happen the way it was reported or might not even have happened at all.


And you have a lot of disdain for someone who is "just asking questions" because that throws the onus back on you to satisfactorily answer their questions rather than them just shut up and stop making trouble.

Hqrry113

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Seems to me that you lack the confidence in your own powers to make up your mind about something. You fear being made to believe something that you don't want to so you don't even want to go there. You take outlandish episodes like flat eartherism and lump them in with perfectly plausible ones like the possibility the the Skripal hit didn't happen the way it was reported or might not even have happened at all.


And you have a lot of disdain for someone who is "just asking questions" because that throws the onus back on you to satisfactorily answer their questions rather than them just shut up and stop making trouble.

The events in Salisbury, an official version of what happened reigns supreme: “Russia did it.” This presumption is scandalously short on evidence and logic, but it survives thanks to some highly effective stonewalling by the British government and some apparent media compliance.

When I asked him is there anything not one hundred percent proven that he believes in his reply was one that surprise surprise the media goes along with, the opinions of mainstream media on important matters are also his opinions on pretty much everything, never questioning anything,he just goes along with it and labels anyone who doesn't as a "conspiracy theorist" and brings up things about holocaust denial and moon landing hoaxes to try and discredit your claims.

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Seems to me that you lack the confidence in your own powers to make up your mind about something. You fear being made to believe something that you don't want to so you don't even want to go there. You take outlandish episodes like flat eartherism and lump them in with perfectly plausible ones like the possibility the the Skripal hit didn't happen the way it was reported or might not even have happened at all.

I didn't put those together.

Flat-earthers tend to have a lot in common with other conspiracy theorists. There's a common theme in the logic, belief types and way they process information.

And you have a lot of disdain for someone who is "just asking questions" because that throws the onus back on you to satisfactorily answer their questions rather than them just shut up and stop making trouble.

The questions usually aren't genuine, it's a technique of casting doubt on an event to hint at some conspiracy. They are trying to find questions that can't be answered or explained to their satisfaction (or illogical standards) therefore some conspiracy must have taken place.

As an example: Holocaust deniers aren't really "curious" about the Holocaust, they are attempting to find questions that are deliberately difficult to answer or explain in order to cast doubt on that entire tract of history, so that they can dispute (round down) the number of Jews killed to satisfy their antisemitism/prejudice.

Hqrry113

He also probably didn't believe that MI5 was behind the killing of Pat Finucane (irish solicitor) and probably labelled anyone who did a conspiracy theorist until 20 years later when David Cameron stood up in Westminster and told everyone the rumours were true due to increased international pressure, or at least he didn't believe it until Taoiseach Bertie Ahern said that "everyone knows the UK government was involved in the murder of Pat Finucane"

King Mob

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Well I'm not a meteorologist so I have to guess, don't I? And why is that hypocritical?

Because you are dismissing a conspiracy theory out of hand despite not looking into it at all based on pretty much nothing.
At the same time you are telling folks like myself for not believing the conspiracy theories you believe in, falling claiming it's because we haven't looked into them.
That's the hypocracy.

ShatterAlan wrote: »

What's YOUR basis for dismissing conspiracies? Are you a ballistics expert? A coroner? A virologist? A toxicologist? A structural engineer? A materials scientist?

It's pretty simple. Conspiracy theories like chemtrails, 9/11 and JFK all follow similar patterns that use the same kind of poor logic and fallacious arguments.
For example, you are using an argument from incredulity to support your belief in the JFK and 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Often times these arguments are also long debunked in the case of your specific one for 9/11.
And equally often those arguments don't actually make sense beyond a surface level.

These are all common signs in conspiracy theories and they are very easy to spot. And it almost always means there's not much to the conspiracy.

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Thousands of scientists dispute the notion of chemtrails. .

Yes you are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Thousands of scientists and experts all disagree with you about your beliefs in 9/11 and JFK.
Are they all part of the conspiracy?
If so then all the experts against chemtrails are also in on the conspiracy.
Every argument and point you are making against chemtrails and other conspiracies you don't believe can be used against the ones you do.
Every point you use to defend your conspiracy theories can be used to defend the ones you do believe.

It is hypocritical.

Dohnjoe

Hqrry113 wrote: »

The events in Salisbury, an official version of what happened reigns supreme: “Russia did it.” This presumption is scandalously short on evidence and logic, but it survives thanks to some highly effective stonewalling by the British government and some apparent media compliance.

So what really happened?

When I asked him is there anything not one hundred percent proven that he believes in his reply was one that surprise surprise the media goes along with, the opinions of mainstream media on important matters are also his opinions on pretty much everything, never questioning anything,he just goes along with it and labels anyone who doesn't as a "conspiracy theorist" and brings up things about holocaust denial and moon landing hoaxes to try and discredit your claims.

Wrong assumptions on every level.

On top of this you've heard about this event (the Salisbury poisoning), and with seemingly low details or knowledge of it you've decided that whatever the facts point towards must be false because that follows some sort of "Western narrative".

Wow.

That is shockingly ignorant. It's the equivalent of someone claiming that the "official narrative" of World War 2 must be wrong because it paints the West as the "good guys".

Dohnjoe

Here comes "the winners always write history" trope, calling it now.

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I didn't put those together.

Flat-earthers tend to have a lot in common with other conspiracy theorists. There's a common theme in the logic, belief types and way they process information.



The questions usually aren't genuine, it's a technique of casting doubt on an event to hint at some conspiracy. They are trying to find questions that can't be answered or explained to their satisfaction (or illogical standards) therefore some conspiracy must have taken place.

As an example: Holocaust deniers aren't really "curious" about the Holocaust, they are attempting to find questions that are deliberately difficult to answer or explain in order to cast doubt on that entire tract of history, so that they can dispute (round down) the number of Jews killed to satisfy their antisemitism/prejudice.

You are lumping them together. You are using crap like lizard people to make anyone who asks a legitimate question about say, the claim that Assad attacked civilians with chlorine gas, sound like a crackpot.


That's what you do whether directly or indirectly. You also pepper your posts with plenty of references to quacks, morons, wackjobs, etc. when most of us are simply discussing plausible conspiracies like the fact that no evidence from John Kerry was shown that truly proved Russia shot down MH-17 or that Maduro has embezzled billions from the Venezuela exchequer.

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

So what really happened?



Wrong assumptions on every level.

On top of this you've heard about this event (the Salisbury poisoning), and with seemingly low details or knowledge of it you've decided that whatever the facts point towards must be false because that follows some sort of "Western narrative".

Wow.

That is shockingly ignorant. It's the equivalent of someone claiming that the "official narrative" of World War 2 must be wrong because it paints the West as the "good guys".

See, there you go. You really are predictable.

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

You are lumping them together. You are using crap like lizard people to make anyone who asks a legitimate question about say, the claim that Assad attacked civilians with chlorine gas, sound like a crackpot.

Those are two examples I haven't used.

People who will believe a conspiracy like e.g. 9/11, can often (but not always) have a tendency towards other conspiracy thinking.

It's also common that these type of people work towards a narrative (e.g. the "West/Jews/UN/etc are evil and up to something") rather than the truth/facts of a situation

when most of us are simply discussing plausible conspiracies like the fact that no evidence from John Kerry was shown that truly proved Russia shot down MH-17 or that Maduro has embezzled billions from the Venezuela exchequer.

Conspiracies happen all the time, however, as mentioned, they rarely get discussed on this forum. And if they do, it's often to claim some silly reverse conspiracy about them.

Posters are generally here to discuss the more fantastical conspiracies (e.g. Mark of the Beast, 911, moon landings, etc, etc) rather than current affairs. You only need to browse through the threads to see this.

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

See, there you go. You really are predictable.

What is your point?

Someone is claiming that an ex-spy can't have been poisoned by the Russian government on foreign soil. Great, they must have information to the contrary. What is it? what alternatively happened?

Typically what happens next is this poster will either ignore the question, or they will go fishing on conspiracy sites to find some kooky conspiracy just so they can pedantically stick to their narrative (rather than the truth)

I sincerely hope I'm wrong..

ShatterAlan

King Mob wrote: »

Because you are dismissing a conspiracy theory out of hand despite not looking into it at all based on pretty much nothing.
At the same time you are telling folks like myself for not believing the conspiracy theories you believe in, falling claiming it's because we haven't looked into them.
That's the hypocracy.

It's pretty simple. Conspiracy theories like chemtrails, 9/11 and JFK all follow similar patterns that use the same kind of poor logic and fallacious arguments.
For example, you are using an argument from incredulity to support your belief in the JFK and 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Often times these arguments are also long debunked in the case of your specific one for 9/11.
And equally often those arguments don't actually make sense beyond a surface level.

These are all common signs in conspiracy theories and they are very easy to spot. And it almost always means there's not much to the conspiracy.


Yes you are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Thousands of scientists and experts all disagree with you about your beliefs in 9/11 and JFK.
Are they all part of the conspiracy?
If so then all the experts against chemtrails are also in on the conspiracy.
Every argument and point you are making against chemtrails and other conspiracies you don't believe can be used against the ones you do.
Every point you use to defend your conspiracy theories can be used to defend the ones you do believe.

It is hypocritical.

Now you're just trolling me. What the fcuk is wrong with you? I'm not dismissing chemtrails based on nothing. I already told you that I saw no evidence to support the theory so am not going to entertain it. As for Lizard People....that's just plain stupid. Are you going to call me a hypocrite for not delving deeper into the possibility that some people are reptiles underneath living human tissue?



And you are completely wrong when you lump chemtrails and lizard people in with 9/11 and JFK. If you took the time to examine your own flawed logic you might notice the fallacy. 9/11 and JFK are people questioning the official narrative because they see holes, anomalies and contradictions in it. Chemtrails and Lizard people are things that people say happen/exist without out any logical proof.
There's a massive difference.



I see ZERO evidence of the existence of god or an afterlife. None. A theist is of course going to ask me why I'm saying there is no god......this is where he gets it wrong just like you have gotten it so spectacularly wrong. I never said there was no god, merely that I see no convincing evidence.
Likewise with chemtrails. It's possible that planes are spewing out chemicals but I see no evidence of it so am not going to spend my life trying to get to the bottom of it. As for lizard people...am I dismissing something stupid out of hand because it's stupid and physically impossible? I'm not go to pay much attention to a group of people who claim to have seen an army of leprechauns riding flying unicorns across the sky either.





Give me a break. Try your little games on some else because I'm not going to be drawn into this childishness.

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

So what really happened?



Wrong assumptions on every level.

On top of this you've heard about this event (the Salisbury poisoning), and with seemingly low details or knowledge of it you've decided that whatever the facts point towards must be false because that follows some sort of "Western narrative".

Wow.

That is shockingly ignorant. It's the equivalent of someone claiming that the "official narrative" of World War 2 must be wrong because it paints the West as the "good guys".

Once you think there are good guys and bad guys then I know you're lost forever.

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Once you think there are good guys and bad guys then I know you're lost forever.

I don't think there are "good guys" and "bad guys". Which is why I put them in inverted commas. Reread my post for context.

If you can't comprehend what I am referring to or what the context is, that might be the source of the issue here. If you need me to explain, I will.

That said you aren't addressing any of the salient points, in fact, quite the opposite, you seem to be repeatedly misunderstanding them.

King Mob

ShatterAlan wrote: »

. I already told you that I saw no evidence to support the theory so am not going to entertain it.

But the believers in chemtrails have tons of what they believe is evidence. Have you not looked at it?

ShatterAlan wrote: »

.
And you are completely wrong when you lump chemtrails and lizard people in with 9/11 and JFK. If you took the time to examine your own flawed logic you might notice the fallacy. 9/11 and JFK are people questioning the official narrative because they see holes, anomalies and contradictions in it.

Unfortunately, that is exactly what chemtrail believers do.
It's also exactly what Holocaust deniers claim they do.

ShatterAlan wrote: »

.
Chemtrails and Lizard people are things that people say happen/exist without out any logical proof.
There's a massive difference.

Not really, as you believe the 9/11 conspiracy, you have to believe in the notion of silent explosive.

ShatterAlan wrote: »

.
Likewise with chemtrails. It's possible that planes are spewing out chemicals but I see no evidence of it so am not going to spend my life trying to get to the bottom of it.

But I've seen no evidence that JFK was killed by a second gunman or that 9/11 was a hoax.
And unlike you, I've looked into both of these things.

ShatterAlan wrote: »

.
As for lizard people...am I dismissing something stupid out of hand because it's stupid and physically impossible?
.

It's physically impossible for the towers in 9/11 to have been secretly demolished.

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

If you are referring to 9/11, that's a perfect example of argument from incredulity. The passport did survive the plane impacts (not just that, but other passports, identity cards and perishable items survived)

But in your mind, "it's impossible", despite it being a fact, therefore it "can't have happened".

Can you explain how a passport can make it outside of someone backpack or jacket during an explosion?

You've go a wallet in your back pocket. In it are cards, and money. You are in an airliner inside the cabin. In the inside pocket of your jacket is your passport. The plane you are travelling on slams into a building and penetrates deep inside with a collossal explosion of jet fuel that is apparently hot enough to cause the steel supports of the building to fail and collapse. Of course at this temperature and the resultant explosion your body is incinerated. Jacket, jeans, shoes, wallet, the lot are immolated in an inferno of 2000 degrees yet the paper passport and plastic ID cards make it out of your vaporised jacket and wallet intact?


Forgive me for having the temerity to doubt such a laughable scenario.


You say something as ridiculous is a fact. Why do you say it's a fact? Even the newscaster on the BBC on the day were calling the claims a joke.


Maybe you should try an experiment. Maybe get an action man doll and put a little passport inside his uniform. Then put him inside his plastic tank. Then wrap that tanks in a petrol soaked towel with more petrol inside the tank, light it and hurl it at a wall so the whole thing ignites then show us the little passport magically hop from inside the uniform (which was incinerated along with action man) and hop from inside the blazing tank and land intact on the ground.



Keep doing it until you get it right.

King Mob

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Can you explain how a passport can make it outside of someone back or jacket during an explosion?

Leaving aside your dishonest strawman, what's the conspiracy explanation.

If the passport can't have survived the explosion, how did it get there?
There's no other possible explanation.

ShatterAlan

King Mob wrote: »

Leaving aside your dishonest strawman, what's the conspiracy explanation.

If the passport can't have survived the explosion, how did it get there?
There's no other possible explanation.

How did it get there?

Is this a wind-up? Piece of advice, don't ever go to a magic show or if you do don't swear blindly to your mates that women can be sawn in half.


Are you being serious now or continuing with your games?
If I tell you that something physically impossible occurred like I've turned tin into gold or water into wine and someone comes along and says "bullsh1t! that's impossible" are you going to say "Well if it's impossible how did he do it? It must be true. There's no other explanation." SERIOUSLY?

Try a little deductive reasoning.

I mentioned before about a hypothetical body on the floor with a knife in his back and the explanation being that he committed suicide. Are you just going to say "Well what else could have happened? There's no other explanation." Of course there's another fucking explanation. It's impossible for someone to stab themselves to death between the shoulder blades so maybe you might want to rule out that scenario and try and come up with other possibilities or are you completely incapable of doing so?

"When you've eliminated the impossible, whatevr remains however improbable must be the truth" -- Sherlock Holmes

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Can you explain how a passport can make it outside of someone back or jacket during an explosion?

It's an explosion, stuff gets blown out, not everything is "vaporised"

Among items discovered intact were seat covers, identity cards, passports, perishable items, luggage, even a paper flight itinerary survived

Here is a more detailed explanation - http://www.911myths.com/html/passport_recovered.html

Forgive me for having the temerity to doubt such a laughable scenario.

It's laughable to you because you are incredulous about it. You can't "imagine it" therefore it couldn't have happened. That's your evidence.

This notion you have is contradicted by the fact that this stuff survived and is documented

You say something as ridiculous is a fact. Why do you say it's a fact?

Because it is a fact. Here are some of the items which survived:



The below was recovered from Flight 93 which hit the ground almost vertically at high speed resulting in a massive fireball

Even the newscaster on the BBC on the day were calling the claims a joke.

Was watching the BBC and other channels on the day - source for this?

Keep doing it until you get it right.

You've just demonstrated a perfect example of argument from incredulity. You personally can't believe something, so it's according to you it's impossible.

King Mob

ShatterAlan wrote: »

How did it get there?

Is this a wind-up?


Are you being serious now or continuing with your games?

I'm being serious.
What's your explanation for how it got there?
Are you saying it was planted?

Please explain your version of events for how the passport was found.

Again, you would be getting less annoyed and frustrated if you just answered questions directly and concisely.
I suspect that you don't want to elaborate on your version of how the passport was found because you will expose the obvious issues with it.

ShatterAlan

King Mob wrote: »

I'm being serious.
What's your explanation for how it got there?
Are you saying it was planted?

Please explain your version of events for how the passport was found.

Again, you would be getting less annoyed and frustrated if you just answered questions directly and concisely.
I suspect that you don't want to elaborate on your version of how the passport was found because you will expose the obvious issues with it.

The plane went into a building and burst into flames inside the building. Tell me how a passport which is inside somebody's pocket or bag can get OUTSIDE of that pocket or bag. It's very simple. How, if you were on a plane, and that plane slammed into a building and your passport was in your jacket how the passport could magically jump out of your pocket but you and your jacket were obliterated? Wouldn't you expect your body and jacket to also survive the fireball?

King Mob

ShatterAlan wrote: »

The plane went into a building and burst into flames inside the building. Tell me how a passport which is inside somebody's pocket or bag can get OUTSIDE of that pocket or bag. It's very simple. How, if you were on a plane, and that plane slammed into a building and your passport was in your jacket how the passport could magically jump out of your pocket but you and your jacket were obliterated? Wouldn't you expect your body and jacket to also survive the fireball?

The same way the dozens of examples that Dohnjoe pointed to did.

Are all of those items faked or planted? Based on your logic so far, they must all be faked.

Could you answer my question please?
How do you believe the passport got there?
I suspect that you are insinuating that it was planted there by the conspirators.
If this is incorrect, please feel free to correct me.

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's an explosion, stuff gets blown out, not everything is "vaporised"

Among items discovered intact were seat covers, identity cards, passports, perishable items, luggage, even a paper flight itinerary survived

Here is a more detailed explanation - http://www.911myths.com/html/passport_recovered.html



It's laughable to you because you are incredulous about it. You can't "imagine it" therefore it couldn't have happened. That's your evidence.

This notion you have is contradicted by the fact that this stuff survived and is documented



Because it is a fact. Here are some of the items which survived:



The below was recovered from Flight 93 which hit the ground almost vertically at high speed resulting in a massive fireball





Was watching the BBC and other channels on the day - source for this?



You've just demonstrated a perfect example of argument from incredulity. You personally can't believe something, so it's according to you it's impossible.

Did all these items leave the plane before it entered the building or were they inside the building along with the burning wreckage and then they were scattered earthwards as the buildings came down?

King Mob

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Did all these items leave the plane before it entered the building

Lol how would they have left the plane before it entered the building?

The Nal

ShatterAlan wrote: »

The plane went into a building and burst into flames inside the building. Tell me how a passport which is inside somebody's pocket or bag can get OUTSIDE of that pocket or bag. It's very simple. How, if you were on a plane, and that plane slammed into a building and your passport was in your jacket how the passport could magically jump out of your pocket but you and your jacket were obliterated? Wouldn't you expect your body and jacket to also survive the fireball?

The front of the plane broke through to the other side of the building. Loads of bits of the plane, the building and the offices got sprayed out all over the place. Everything wasn't immediately incinerated.

There are tens of thousands of intact "artifacts" from the day. Heres a two dollar bill found in a wallet from a guy on the 92nd floor.



Actually 70,000 artifacts. I guess they're all faked aswell.

https://www.911memorial.org/visit/museum/collection

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's an explosion, stuff gets blown out, not everything is "vaporised"

Among items discovered intact were seat covers, identity cards, passports, perishable items, luggage, even a paper flight itinerary survived

Here is a more detailed explanation - http://www.911myths.com/html/passport_recovered.html



It's laughable to you because you are incredulous about it. You can't "imagine it" therefore it couldn't have happened. That's your evidence.

This notion you have is contradicted by the fact that this stuff survived and is documented



Because it is a fact. Here are some of the items which survived:



The below was recovered from Flight 93 which hit the ground almost vertically at high speed resulting in a massive fireball





Was watching the BBC and other channels on the day - source for this?



You've just demonstrated a perfect example of argument from incredulity. You personally can't believe something, so it's according to you it's impossible.

That website also mentions that a wedding was recovered. :pac:


What happened to the finger, hand and body that was wearing the ring?

King Mob

ShatterAlan wrote: »

That website also mentions that a wedding was recovered. :pac:


What happened to the finger, hand and body that was wearing the ring?

Again, are you claiming all of these items are fake?
Yes or no?

ShatterAlan

King Mob wrote: »

Lol how would they have left the plane before it entered the building?

OK, when DID they leave the plane?