My First Conspiracy Theory This "Terrorist Attack" is a set up

[BobTheDonkey]

So far, the only arguments against the CT are:

"It's a CT, you're a nutjob."

"There's no evil cabal out there"

"Far too many people would be involved to keep this quiet"

"What is the motive?"

"Those at the top would stand to lose too much if they were found out"

"There are real terrorists in the world"


Well, all those have been responded to, and no one's really poked a hole in this CT. Again, it's not that I believe it's truly a conspiracy. But let's do better than arguments from personal incredulity. Just because it's a CT doesn't mean it's implausible for the same reasons the 9/11 CT is.

We're talking a small number of people involved - the agent directly talking to the bomber, his supervisor, maybe 1-2 other people in Congress/WH/Pentagon. The goal is to "bring terrorism" home in a "real" manner - but with a controlled, non-lethal terrorist attempt. The terrorist was setup...he might have believed it was a real bomb when in fact it wasn't, so why would he testify against the CIA, et al?

Simply reverting to asking for evidence for a conspiracy does not, really, cause the CT to be more implausible, nor does it prove it's implausible - it's a petulant move attempting to end the discussion without actually requiring refutation of the plausible scenarios presented. Specifically, the request merely indicates that evidence is/would be hard to come by for a properly executed conspiracy, but does not independently falsify the theories presented.

This isn't like responding to a claim that the towers fell due to a planned demolition. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary. So far, no evidence has been presented that pokes holes in the presented scenario.

CT'er says "thermite was used"
Debunker says "No, no traces of thermite were found. Besides, that's not how thermite works"

CTer says "there weren't really people on the planes and there were demo crews that set up the buildings in the weeks prior"
Debunker says "that's an awful lot of people to keep quiet" (in this case it's valid as the CT requires large numbers of people to be kept quiet)

 

[Brainache]

OK then, give us your plausible scenario for how the CIA duped this guy into thinking they were actual terrorists sending him on an actual terrorist mission.

Give us some reason to believe that the CIA would devote so many resources to a plot like this.

Put it together in a way that makes real world sense, not just CT speculation.

 

[angrysoba]

So far, the only arguments against the CT are:

"It's a CT, you're a nutjob."

"There's no evil cabal out there"

"Far too many people would be involved to keep this quiet"

"What is the motive?"

"Those at the top would stand to lose too much if they were found out"

"There are real terrorists in the world"


Well, all those have been responded to, and no one's really poked a hole in this CT. Again, it's not that I believe it's truly a conspiracy. But let's do better than arguments from personal incredulity. Just because it's a CT doesn't mean it's implausible for the same reasons the 9/11 CT is.

We're talking a small number of people involved - the agent directly talking to the bomber, his supervisor, maybe 1-2 other people in Congress/WH/Pentagon. The goal is to "bring terrorism" home in a "real" manner - but with a controlled, non-lethal terrorist attempt. The terrorist was setup...he might have believed it was a real bomb when in fact it wasn't, so why would he testify against the CIA, et al?

Simply reverting to asking for evidence for a conspiracy does not, really, cause the CT to be more implausible, nor does it prove it's implausible - it's a petulant move attempting to end the discussion without actually requiring refutation of the plausible scenarios presented. Specifically, the request merely indicates that evidence is/would be hard to come by for a properly executed conspiracy, but does not independently falsify the theories presented.

This isn't like responding to a claim that the towers fell due to a planned demolition. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary. So far, no evidence has been presented that pokes holes in the presented scenario.

CT'er says "thermite was used"
Debunker says "No, no traces of thermite were found. Besides, that's not how thermite works"

CTer says "there weren't really people on the planes and there were demo crews that set up the buildings in the weeks prior"
Debunker says "that's an awful lot of people to keep quiet" (in this case it's valid as the CT requires large numbers of people to be kept quiet)

I want your best argument for saying that blancmange didn't try to blow up the plane landing in Detroit.

Prove it!!!1!

 

[TS-]

So far, the only arguments against the CT are:

"It's a CT, you're a nutjob."

"There's no evil cabal out there"

"Far too many people would be involved to keep this quiet"

"What is the motive?"

"Those at the top would stand to lose too much if they were found out"

"There are real terrorists in the world"

Are you serious?

 

[Thunder]

So far, the only arguments against the CT are:

"It's a CT, you're a nutjob."

"There's no evil cabal out there"

"Far too many people would be involved to keep this quiet"

"What is the motive?"

"Those at the top would stand to lose too much if they were found out"

"There are real terrorists in the world"

well, then you obviously have paid ZERO attention to the years of debunking of conspiracy theories. ignorance is bliss, ay?

 

[Symbol]

The idea of going after Yemen reminds me of when my cat catches a moth.

She plays with the damn thing for a few minutes until it's almost dead, then she gives me a look that says "Damn, I guess I'm meant to eat it now?"

 

[BobTheDonkey]

well, then you obviously have paid ZERO attention to the years of debunking of conspiracy theories. ignorance is bliss, ay?

I'm sorry, what does years of debunking conspiracy theories have to do with that list I posted (and, yes, I don't really pay attention to conspiracy theories or the debunking thereof, so, you'll have to excuse me if I don't know the "catch responses")

 

[Thunder]

I'm sorry, what does years of debunking conspiracy theories have to do with that list I posted (and, yes, I don't really pay attention to conspiracy theories or the debunking thereof, so, you'll have to excuse me if I don't know the "catch responses")

you posted what you perceive to be the only responses debunkers give to conspiracy theories.

such a pathetic list is clearly a result of not knowing a thing about the many years of CT debunking that has gone on.

CT have been debunked since JFK. so you have 47 years of back-up.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

you posted what you perceive to be the only responses debunkers give to conspiracy theories.

such a pathetic list is clearly a result of not knowing a thing about the many years of CT debunking that has gone on.

CT have been debunked since JFK. so you have 47 years of back-up.

Uh, no sir. I was listing the responses in this thread, not all the responses to CT over the past 47 years. I was unaware this thread (and this particular CT) covered every CT over the past 47 years

 

[Thunder]

Uh, no sir. I was listing the responses in this thread, not all the responses to CT over the past 47 years. I was unaware this thread (and this particular CT) covered every CT over the past 47 years

ok. i honestly thought you were a CTist, making a strawman argument suggesting that all debunking of CT was silly and stupid.

but if you were only referring to debunking in this thread, than i do apologize.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

ok. i honestly thought you were a CTist, making a strawman argument suggesting that all debunking of CT was silly and stupid.

LOL

Not at all. I don't even believe this was a true conspiracy.

but if you were only referring to debunking in this thread, than i do apologize.

This, really, has been an exercise in critical thinking. And I have to say I'm quite disappointed in the responses in this thread. Very few of them have been interested in actually debunking the CT presented, rather the tactic is to merely label it woo, equate it to other CT woo, and then claim they've won the day...

 

[Whiplash]

Actually that's a very interesting point. Why would someone set fire to himself sitting in the seat on the plane. If you really wanted it to work why not just go into the bathroom to set it off and pop the door open when you are done. Since many of the Bathrooms are located by the kitchen area you could also pull it off while the airline attendants were serving food thereby blocking the aisles.

I think that the idea here is that the explosives in question are not exactly like a stick of dynamite or anything... and the skin of the aircraft is much thinner in the window seat than it is in the bathroom, where there are structural supports that make up the walls and so forth.

You probably only have to punch a fairly small hole in the skin to cause a catastrophe. I think you'd require a lot more explosive to carry that out in the bathroom.

 

[truethat]

So far, the only arguments against the CT are:

"It's a CT, you're a nutjob."

"There's no evil cabal out there"

"Far too many people would be involved to keep this quiet"

"What is the motive?"

"Those at the top would stand to lose too much if they were found out"

"There are real terrorists in the world"


Well, all those have been responded to, and no one's really poked a hole in this CT. Again, it's not that I believe it's truly a conspiracy. But let's do better than arguments from personal incredulity. Just because it's a CT doesn't mean it's implausible for the same reasons the 9/11 CT is.

We're talking a small number of people involved - the agent directly talking to the bomber, his supervisor, maybe 1-2 other people in Congress/WH/Pentagon. The goal is to "bring terrorism" home in a "real" manner - but with a controlled, non-lethal terrorist attempt. The terrorist was setup...he might have believed it was a real bomb when in fact it wasn't, so why would he testify against the CIA, et al?

Simply reverting to asking for evidence for a conspiracy does not, really, cause the CT to be more implausible, nor does it prove it's implausible - it's a petulant move attempting to end the discussion without actually requiring refutation of the plausible scenarios presented. Specifically, the request merely indicates that evidence is/would be hard to come by for a properly executed conspiracy, but does not independently falsify the theories presented.

This isn't like responding to a claim that the towers fell due to a planned demolition. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary. So far, no evidence has been presented that pokes holes in the presented scenario.

CT'er says "thermite was used"
Debunker says "No, no traces of thermite were found. Besides, that's not how thermite works"

CTer says "there weren't really people on the planes and there were demo crews that set up the buildings in the weeks prior"
Debunker says "that's an awful lot of people to keep quiet" (in this case it's valid as the CT requires large numbers of people to be kept quiet)

Thank you for summing this up. I was too lazy to do it. But damn the lack of critical thinking in this thread has been really interesting.

I too thought I made it really obvious that I don't believe in this CT but it has been an excercise in watching analysis and critical thinking be reduced to "Prove it!" and "You're a woo!!!!Eleventy!!!!"

 

[dc1971]

Reality is thattaway, skeptigirl. ----->

Dude, your avatar is scaring me! I'm going to have nightmares now! :-(

 

[lector]

Who benefits?

Ever since this thread began, I have been asking myself who benefits most from the scenario posited. What's the payoff? Who gets the most out of it?

From the last several nights of viewing local news, in which I've endured endless variations & repetitions of the phrase, "Times Square terror jitters!", I am forced to conclude that a consortium of New York media executives was behind the plot.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Ever since this thread began, I have been asking myself who benefits most from the scenario posited. What's the payoff? Who gets the most out of it?

From the last several nights of viewing local news, in which I've endured endless variations & repetitions of the phrase, "Times Square terror jitters!", I am forced to conclude that a consortium of New York media executives was behind the plot.

Oooh, and the plot thickens. Sort of.

Maybe the NY Media execs are Lizardians...

 

[angrysoba]

Ever since this thread began, I have been asking myself who benefits most from the scenario posited. What's the payoff? Who gets the most out of it?

Has no one checked to see where the guy's underpants were made?

I bet they were made in China and this has all been done so that China can crack down on freedoms there and the Uigyur population of East Turkestan. If you look around you'll notice that China are attempting to grab all the oil and gas reserves of Central Asia and have just opened a big copper mine in Afghanistan. They're clearly ramping up the terror threat with these things because THEY BENEFIT!!!!!11!

CHINA DONE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111!!!1!

Now, TrueThat and BobTheDonkey, I order you to find evidence that DISPROVES this theory. Betcha can't do it and betcha gonna ignore it too.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Has no one checked to see where the guy's underpants were made?

I bet they were made in China and this has all been done so that China can crack down on freedoms there and the Uigyur population of East Turkestan. If you look around you'll notice that China are attempting to grab all the oil and gas reserves of Central Asia and have just opened a big copper mine in Afghanistan. They're clearly ramping up the terror threat with these things because THEY BENEFIT!!!!!11!

CHINA DONE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111!!!1!

Now, TrueThat and BobTheDonkey, I order you to find evidence that DISPROVES this theory. Betcha can't do it and betcha gonna ignore it too.

Wait. You order us to? You order us to? Dude. I don't know who you are, nor do I care. But I am no longer in the Military. I take orders from no man, woman, or child (except, on occasion, my gf).

Secondly, your argument ad-absurdim does nothing to poke holes into the theory as presented. Every other CT that's been debunked had evidence that the theories were implausible. Resorting to "provide evidence of a well-covered-up conspiracy" is the intellectually lazy-man's way of saying "I don't want to play anymore. I'm taking my ball and going home."

Explain to me why the theory/scenario presented is unlikely to be the case? Do you have any evidence that the theory as presented is wrong? No? I'm sure you'll either:

a) ignore the request for evidence

or

b) claim the onus of evidence is on the CT'er.

Unfortunately, the onus of evidence is on both sides of any discussion. You want to claim it's a nonsense CT, then provide evidence that such is the case .

The method used to debunk 9/11 Truthers is not to simply say "any evidence? Didn't think so." The method used is: "Well, you have no evidence - which is to be expected in a conspiracy theory. But regardless, here's what evidence we have that your proposed theory isn't plausible/is incorrect/etc."

Am I the only one that can see the difference?


ETA: As it stands, at best we can only reach the stalemate of: "There is no evidence either way as to the validity of this conspiracy theory. I would like to believe it's not (or it is, depending on your stance), but we really just don't know" as a scenario has been presented and been met with no refutations that make it implausible.

 

[Brainache]

...
ETA: As it stands, at best we can only reach the stalemate of: "There is no evidence either way as to the validity of this conspiracy theory. I would like to believe it's not (or it is, depending on your stance), but we really just don't know" as a scenario has been presented and been met with no refutations that make it implausible.

You haven't actually given us anything to debunk. "The CIA did it" is not a theory, it is a piece of baseless speculation.

It is no more plausible than saying it was Mossad or the frigging Mounties.

You have done nothing whatsoever to demonstate the plausibility of this silly CT. That is why no one is bothering to debunk it.

Until this guy has a trial and all of the evidence against him has been presented, neither you nor I nor anyone else outside of the investigation knows any of the details.

So you might as well say you think he was in cahoots with Mothra.

 

[JihadJane]

Thank you for summing this up. I was too lazy to do it. But damn the lack of critical thinking in this thread has been really interesting.

I too thought I made it really obvious that I don't believe in this CT but it has been an excercise in watching analysis and critical thinking be reduced to "Prove it!" and "You're a woo!!!!Eleventy!!!!"

Welcome to JREF.


Why don't you believe in your CT?