Are All Conspiracy Theories False?

[Zep]

NSA existence? Overthrow of Iran? Manhattan project? Operation Northwoods? Operation Shamrock?

1) When was the NSA ever a secret?

2) When was CIA involvement in this and many other similar escapades ever a secret?

3) David Greenglass (look him up). Sheesh...

4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods - some "secret"!

5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_SHAMROCK - another "secret"!

 

[Topspy]

What could be happening now?

An ideology could be forming here, or elsewhere, that will be recognized only in the future to be evil - or at least wrong. Not saying that it IS happening, just that it COULD be.

 

[jimtron]

An ideology could be forming here, or elsewhere, that will be recognized only in the future to be evil - or at least wrong. Not saying that it IS happening, just that it COULD be.

There are zillions and zillions of things that could be happening. That creaking sound I hear in the attic could be ghosts, or KGB spies, or angels, or Satan, or invisible Martians, or maybe Uri Geller is using PK power to make the floor boards creak. It's great to have a vivid imagination, but when it comes to real life, I don't think we need to worry about things that aren't likely to be actually happening.

 

[Belz...]

The notion that large secrets involving thousands of people cannot be kept is betrayed by the facts.

It's a fact that a conspiracy of two is often exposed by one of the two speaking out. How about thousands ?

Consider the NSA. Here is an entire government agency founded in the 1940's, and kept secret for decades until the 1980's. QUOTE]

That its existence was denied doesn't mean it was secret.

On the physical science by itself, Occam's razor clearly slices in favor of controlled demolition. This is because we know that controlled demolitions can occur, they have occured many times in the past. It requires no new theory to explain it. Thus controlled demolition is a far simpler explanation than the brand-new "gravity disintegrates the quarter mile high skyscraper" hypothesis.

That's not Occam's razor. Try to learn something.

Sure there is. All sorts of people have come out with all sorts of theories attempting to explain it. First there was fire-melts-steel. That didn't fly.

Then there was pancake. That lasted for a couple of years.

Now there is column-pull, crush-down crush-up self-disintegrating along with pancake-when-it's-convenient or whatever you want to call it. But obviously new theories have been trotted out, repeatedly. This in and of itself is not sinister, but is indicative of a phenomenon which is not understood.

Occam's razor slices on the side of an explanation which is currently well understood, not a brand-new never-before-seen phenomenon which just happens to look exactly like the well understood explanation.

That's a sizeable army of strawmen you've built there. Aside from France, I don't think you'd be able to conquer anyone with it, though. And that's IF they could run around the maginot line...

 

[Belz...]

It is physically impossible for these buildings to "collapse" as rapidly as they did unless lower floors are moving out of the way prior to being impacted by upper floors.

Is it ?

The penthouse collapse is irrelevant

Ah! Ignore the part you don't like to get the collapse time you DO want. Rich.

Those buildings did not collapse. They did not fall down. They disintegrated.

Sorry, wrong spell.

Personally, I think seismic activity is much more consistant with explosives that anything else.

Thank Ed you don't build houses or bridges.

The penthouse of WTC7 collapsed because the explosives on the columns which support it were detonated first.

Evidence ?

NSA existence? Overthrow of Iran? Manhattan project? Operation Northwoods? Operation Shamrock?

Didn't most of those become public knowledge really quickly ? Especially once completed ?

 

[DavidJames]

Is it ?



Ah! Ignore the part you don't like to get the collapse time you DO want. Rich.



Sorry, wrong spell.



Thank Ed you don't build houses or bridges.



Evidence ?



Didn't most of those become public knowledge really quickly ? Especially once completed ?

Remember the good old days when MakeSh!TUp1234 first came here. His first thread was in the science forum, wanting to keep things scientific. Now he posts all the usual CT crap without a shred of evidence. I bet, for him, it's nice to have thrown off the "shackles of evidence".

 

[DarkMagician]

The problem with CTists, and Loosers specifically, is that they believe if one conspiracy is true then they all must be true.

Take a look at this thread that Brainster started showing what Dylan Avery is planning for his movie Loose Change: Final Cut. It's a long list of CTs throughout history. Apparently Dylan thinks that if he prove these other conspiracies were true then it makes his 9/11 conspiracy true. That's the way these Loosers think.

Steve S

Exactly. Then they add in a red herring to get their accuracy shot.

 

[DavidJames]

Exactly. Then they add in a red herring to get their accuracy shot.

I don't think his intention is to prove them true but plant seeds of doubt. What I find interesting is there appears to be much less about 9/11. Which, for him, makes sense since he's got zero evidence for a CT. His only shot is create doubt and hope the doubters will just lump all the CT's together.

 

[bonavada]

9/11 would have involved thousands of people OUTSIDE of govt agencies, such as CD experts, structural engineers, firefighters, FAA employees, etc, THESE are the people would not keep the secret

ditto

it's obviously ridiculous to claim that that number of INDEPENDENT intelligent resourceful people with involvement of the events of the WTC destruction could be kept quiet for all this time.

ffs the nixon administration couldn't even hush up a small office burglary and a modest slush fund. what hope would messrs bush and co (despised as he/they seems to be by many US citizens) harbour that they could conceal such a mammoth horrendous crime from such a sophisticated public?

BV
Swansea Wales UK

 

[Topspy]

There are zillions and zillions of things that could be happening. That creaking sound I hear in the attic could be ghosts, or KGB spies, or angels, or Satan, or invisible Martians, or maybe Uri Geller is using PK power to make the floor boards creak. It's great to have a vivid imagination, but when it comes to real life, I don't think we need to worry about things that aren't likely to be actually happening.

You deliberately misinterpret my response. you pointed out that it should have been clear that the Nazi movement was a danger at the time.... I am simply saying that, for most people, it was NOT recognized as such then, but is now. Therefor something similar now might not be recognized as a danger until later, after the fact. It has nothing to do with a vivid imagination, just possiblities. And the Nazi movement WAS real life, and millions died. Should they not have worried?

 

[Pardalis]

Do you have any tangible evidence that your government is anything like the 1933 German Nazis?

 

[jimtron]

You deliberately misinterpret my response. you pointed out that it should have been clear that the Nazi movement was a danger at the time.... I am simply saying that, for most people, it was NOT recognized as such then, but is now. Therefor something similar now might not be recognized as a danger until later, after the fact. It has nothing to do with a vivid imagination, just possiblities. And the Nazi movement WAS real life, and millions died. Should they not have worried?

I may well have misinterpreted you, but not deliberately so.

There certainly are times to worry, no doubt about it. My point is that just because something could happen, that doesn't mean it's likely to happen. I don't worry too much when I get on a plane; I realize that driving in a car is more dangerous (statistically speaking, if I'm not mistaken). If I'm walking late at night in a bad neighborhood, I might worry about getting mugged. But I don't waste my time worrying about what might happen on Friday the 13th, and I don't worry about going to hell for wearing mixed fiber. That's what I was getting at.

That said, there is evidence of very real potential (and imminent) dangers today. There are many leaders around the world that make me nervous. There is plenty of insanity and intolerance and racism and sexism and anti-semitism. Those aren't just possibilities; there is evidence that they exist. The situation in Rwanda is devastatingly awful, and very real, for example.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

So in other words:

Your ill-informed theory presumes the use of CD's due to the fact that the time elapsed from start to finish of collapse was less than free fall.

And that in order for your theory to "work" there needed to be additional CD's that take place before "the clock starts".

If you are going to believe a complete piece of fiction, maybe you should pick something that isn't quite as blatantly self-contradicting.

Grunion, I never said any such things. There is nothing self-contradicting about a controlled demolition. THey have occured many times in the past.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

I've read the comments above. Does anyone here deny that the entire existence of the NSA was kept secret for decades? How about Iran 1953? A coup orchestrated by US spooks and kept secret for decades? Shamrock was indeed a conspiracy between the large telecoms and the government spooks to lay cable across the atlantic and then monitor and translate messages. It was kept secret for, how long? 20 years? 30?

Last call. Any refutation for these facts? Facts that we only know about decades later after the documents are finally declassified?

I'm just trying to get a handle on whether you guys think large conspiracies are simply impossible, or you just dispute 9/11 in particular, while conceding that conspiracies have ocurred in the past.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

OK, but my point is that even if Germany won the war, the Holocaust would not be unkown to the rest of the world.

For example, we won the war and yet the existence of the Japanese prison camps are public knowledge.

It doesn't. The penthouse collapse is irrelevant. Any internal machinations that may have occurred before the roofline moves are irrelevant.

I still don't understand how this is irrelevant. You are trying to time the collapse. The penthouse is part of the collapse. How is it not relevant?

Unless you're going to imagine that all the floors got out of the way of the roof, yes, it's irrelevant.

Personally, I think seismic activity is much more consistant with explosives that anything else.

Ah, so you're a seismologist now?

The twin towers did not disintegrate when they hit the ground, they disintegrated in mid air, systematically. Please observe. What you imagine is evocative, but not what occured.

And by exactly what process do you disintegrate something systematically in mid-air?

You make an excellent point David. Social science is always complex. This is why Occam's razor does not apply to social science, only physical science. With social science, I could give a hundred examples where the simplist plausible explanation is not the correct one.

I disagree. I think Occam's Razor works quite well in social science. However, keep in mind that Occam's Razor states that all else being equal, blah, blah, blah. How often in social science is all else equal? Very seldom.

The penthouse of WTC7 collapsed because the explosives on the columns which support it were detonated first. Being on one side of the roof, I suspect the engineers needed to get it out of the way first in order to maintain the symmetrical collapse of the whole building.

Can you show evidence that this is a typical way of doing controlled demolitions?

Yes, back to the topic. Do you guys think conspiracies ever happen?

Absolutely. In fact, just 5 years ago, 19 terrorists conspired to hijack some planes and crash them into the New York City skyline.

 

[Horatius]

I'm just trying to get a handle on whether you guys think large conspiracies are simply impossible, or you just dispute 9/11 in particular, while conceding that conspiracies have ocurred in the past.

I just noticed, you've moved the goal posts again. You started off asking if all "conspiracy theories" were false, and now you're asking about actual conspiracies.

So I ask you, did anyone who we would regard as a "conspiracy theorist" in line with the 9/11 Truth movement ever publish anything on any of these alleged "conspiracies" while they were ongoing? If not, why should we assume you guys are now getting it all correct?

That is, have any of your alleged conspiracies ever been exposed by someone who wasn't a part of them, in some way?

So I'd say that, depending on your definitions, conspiracies may exist, but they don't have anything in common with the convoluted, overly dramatic, simultaneously hyper-competent and rock stupid, "theories" put out by the CT crowd.

It's like someone saying, "Physics has proved that we can split the atom, therefore my perpetual motion device will also work".

 

[Strider1974]

The Holocaust was the direct result of a paranoid conspiracy theory, the Nazi belief that there was a vast Jewish conspiracy aimed at world domination and that all of humanity's problems could be explained by the existence of that conspiracy.

The same principle applied to the Stalinist witch-hunts against "kulaks", "wreckers" and "counterrevolutionaries", and to the persecutions perpetrated by the Cultural Revolution in China.

I would add the Witch trials of the Middle Ages to this list.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Last call. Any refutation for these facts? Facts that we only know about decades later after the documents are finally declassified?

Refutations have already been given. You may disagree, but don't pretend they don't exist.

I'm just trying to get a handle on whether you guys think large conspiracies are simply impossible, or you just dispute 9/11 in particular, while conceding that conspiracies have ocurred in the past.

Strawman. No conspiracy is "simply impossible", but the possibility of keeping a conspiracy secret gets progressibly smaller, the bigger it is.

A secret agency can get away with acting undercover, using specially recruited agents, for quite some time.

Demolishing some of the planet's largest buildings, in a busy metropolis, in broad daylight, in times of (relative) peace, requiring the coordinated, secret effort of hundreds of independent specialists over an extended period of time, and a dizzyingly complex orchestration is not only so difficult as to be virtually impossible, it is also highly unlikely to be planned in the first place.

Never mind motives and morals: Would YOU give the go-ahead to plans that had, to be VERY charitable, 90% chance of going wrong, and which, if it went wrong, would destroy you completely, probably have you sentenced to death, and have you placed in history somewhere in the class below Hitler and Pol Pot?

Let's have a little game, TS1234 (and other CTers):

Let's assume you are the evil GWB (or whomever you assume to be the mastermind). Now, write the synopsis for your presentation for the commitee that is to do the detailed planning. How would you sell this job?

Hans

 

[Loss Leader]

How about Iran 1953? A coup orchestrated by US spooks and kept secret for decades?

...

Last call. Any refutation for these facts? Facts that we only know about decades later after the documents are finally declassified?

I have already refuted this and others. Just because you disagreed with me doesn't mean I didn't do it.

There was nothing secret about the US support for the Shah of Iran. Not only did the Iranians know it, but they're still mad about it. In 1979, they stormed our embassy because of it. Today, they're building nukes because of it. This so-called conspiracy backfired almost from its inception and the blowback is still being felt today.

 

[CurtC]

BS1234, there are secret military projects being done to this day. They're kept secret because the projects have been deemed to be more effective if our enemies don't know about it.

Now if this kind of stuff is what you call a "conspiracy," then yes, those really do happen. What most people think of as a conspiracy is a secret plan among a group of individuals which would be considered immoral or unethical if anyone else knew about it.

In that sense, I don't think large-scale conspiracies are possible. You can't get a large group of people to go along with bad behavior, no matter what, and expect them all to keep quiet about it. You're working against the fact that the vast majority of people out there are decent people who want to do the right thing.