A zany thing about hardcore conspiracy theorists.

[LoZoccolo]

Ever notice that they tell you that you should question everything, but once you question their conspiracy theory, they snap a fan belt and start doing stuff like accusing you of being naive or of not wanting to deal with the larger implications of the theory or they throw some detail of the theory at you that you haven't heard yet and go like "well then Mister Smart Guy, how do you explain ____"?

I wanted to turn this into a poll and be silly, so the question is:

Do you think it's funny that I pointed this out?

[WillyT]

1. No !!! - I Think You Are Part Of A Conspiracy With Larger Implications !!!

Well then Mister Smart Guy, how do you explain THAT???

:hi::evilgrin::hi:

[gmoney]

2. The conspiracy to discredit conspiracy theories continues...

The conspiracy to discredit conspiracy theories continues...

As the Mel Gibson movie PROVES CONCLUSIVELY, there are evil elements conspiring against us all.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

34. And...

The conspiracy to discredit the conspiracy to descredit conspiracy theories continues...

The conspiracy to discredit the conspiracy to discredit the conspiracy to discredit conspiracy theories continues...

I love recursion.

[Dogmudgeon]

3. Ectually ...

Most conspiracy theorists I know are every bit as rational as the "skeptics" who undertake to "debunk" them -- even more so.

That wasn't the case even twenty years ago, but I think it's a matter of defining deviancy. Today, any time anyone is suspected of harboring hidden agendas or is doing things on the sly, it is laughed down as "conspiracy theorizing." It's a great way to intimidate most people out of public criticism of the power structure.

I'd much rather hear from all the nuts out there than miss even a single insight into how the real nuts are playing dice with our universe.

--bkl
Yahtzee!

[LoZoccolo]

4. Oh there are conspiracies, alright.

But there's a difference between people like, say, Woodward and Bernstien going around actually talking to people who might know something about Watergate and like, people on the Internet wanting to pin something big on their enemies and shooting down every criticism in the way I describe above.

[libhill]

7. Good post -

I don`t believe in coincidence. Everything happens for a reason.

[Wonk]

5. I'd agree with your observation if you included the word "some"

as in, "A zany thing about some hardcore conspiracy theorists."

I've noticed the same about those who subscribe to the "bumbleplanes", "no plane hit the pentagon" and "that 757 fired a missile just before it hit the WTC" conspiracy theory believers. I don't happen to subscribe to any of those theories, as I don't find the evidence that has been presented to support them as being conclusive in the least. I do also happen to be what you'd probably consider a "hardcore conspiracy theorist" because the evidence I've seen leads me to bellieve that 9/11 was LIHOP. I also believe that those three theories I've listed above were quite likely intentionally propogated in order to discredit serious questions into the Al Qaeda / CIA connections and the Bin Laden family / Bush family connections.

As has been mentioned numerous times before, the officially accepted "they pulled it off from a cave on the other side of the planet and we had no way to stop it" theory is also a conspiracy theory.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1708940&mesg_id=1708943&page=
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x1222143#1222177

[LoZoccolo]

6. Oh yeah, of course there's always exceptions.

But I find this trend pretty common!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

12. Exactly disinformation is as real as MISinformation and serves

a purpose. That is what happened with the Gary Webb story...discredit a little and in the public's mind you discredit all of it.

[RafterMan]

8. I've just been thinking the same thing

The slightest oddity in the official story is magnified into a gaping hole, every gaping hole in the alternate theory is invisible.

[MercutioATC]

10. Can I quote you on that?

That's the best I've heard it put yet...

[Sterling]

15. I see that sometimes but then....

Sometimes DUers get it right way before everyone else. That far outweights any inonvinience to the debunkers. In fact sometimes the debunkers serve a very important purpose when they are not making strawman childish insults. It is vital to vet everything.

[bpilgrim]

9. i find it interesting that some hardcore coincidence theorist

break out into a froth, start silly threads and go on a rampage against anyone who doesn't see things their way usually based on nothing more than faith in their gut.

weird, eh

peace

[Media_Lies_Daily]

11. "Weird"? No freakin' kidding.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

13. *snicker*

Hey Billy :hi:

We may have our differences of opinion from time to time but that which binds us is stronger....

[Sterling]

14. Seems like a waste of time to me.

I wonder why one would bother with people so below them?

[bpilgrim]

16. D'oh!

busted

hey everyone :hi:


peace

[quinnox]

17. I noticed

Some of them have watched too many X-files in my opinion, or perhaps it is fun to pretend you have 'forbidden' knowledge and are part of the cloak and dagger game, who knows.

But that is a tactic I have seen used, where if you question some of them they say you are part of the establishment or a sheep or so on, rather than try to argue the facts of their pet theory in a rational manner. It is hard to argue when you are accused of also being part of a conspiracy, lol.

Anyway, of course this doesn't mean that there are no conspiracies but that is what is peculiar about them, for a true believer it is almost impossible to be convinced otherwise.

[Insider]

18. this is funny

if two or more people conspire to commit a crime, then commit the crime, and i can't explain all the details of their conspiracy and their crime, that means they neither conspired nor committed the crime.

now that's funny.

[ThoughtCriminal]

19. Always seems to be big Elephant in Livingroom

problems in the theories that they just ignore - or the explanation really goes way out of reasonable bounds. Like - If a plane didn't hit the Pentagon, where did everybody on the plane go?

[OneBlueSky]

20. well . . . here's one theory . . .

HERE'S WHAT HAPPENED

* A Boeing 767 was secured and painted up to look like a United Airlines jet. It had remote controls installed in it, courtesy of some NORAD types. Call that plane "Pseudo Flight 175" and leave it parked at a military airfield for the moment.

* The number of the passengers on each flight was kept artificially low that day. Easy to do. Just monkey with the airline computers and show the fights full so no more tickets are sold. Include some of your own operatives in each flight, maybe.

* After the planes are in the air, the transponders must be shut down. There are a few ways to do this, maybe, but the simplest is this: Have one of the NORAD insiders call the pilots and say: "This is the North American Aerospace Defense Command. There is a national emergency. We are under terrorist attack. Turn off your transponders. Maintain radio silence. Here is your new flight plan. You will land at military air base."

* The pilots turn off the transponders. The FAA weenies lose the information which identifies the airline, the flight number, and the altitude of the planes. Of course the planes can still be seen on conventional radar, but the planes are just nameless blips now.

* What did the radar show of the planes' flight paths? We'll never see the real records, for sure. But in the spy movies, when the spy wants to lose a tail, he gets a double to lead the tail one way while the spy goes the other. If I were designing Operation 911, I'd do that: As each of the original jets is flying, another jet is sent to fly just above or below it, at the same latitude and longitude. The blips of the two planes merge on the radar scopes. Alternately, a plane is sent to cross the flight path of the original plane. Again, the blips merge, just like the little bees you're watching outside the hive. The original planes proceed to the military airfield and air traffic control is thoroughly confused, watching the wrong blips ...

That's probably close to the way it was managed. Like I say, we'll never see the radar records so we won't know exactly.

* A small remote controlled commuter jet filled with incendiaries/explosives -- a cruise missile, if you like -- is flown into the first WTC tower. That's the plane the first NBC eyewitness saw.

* The remote controlled "Pseudo Flight 175," decked out to look like a United airlines passenger jet, is sent aloft and flown by remote control -- without passengers -- and crashed into the second tower.

Beautiful! Everyone has pictures of that.

Why did Pseudo Flight 175 almost miss the second tower? Because the remote operators were used to smaller, more maneuverable craft, not a big stubborn passenger jet. The operators brought the jet in on a tight circle and almost blew it because those jets do hairpin turns like the Queen Mary. They brought it in too fast and too close to do the job right and just hit the corner of the tower.

* Then another remote controlled commuter jet filled with incendiaries/explosives -- a cruise missile if you like -- hits the Pentagon, in the name of Flight 77.

* Eyewitnesses are a dime a dozen. Trusted media whores "witness" the Pentagon hit and claim it was an American Airlines Boeing 757, Flight 77. Reporters lie better than lawyers.

* Meanwhile, the passengers from Flights 11, 175, and 77, now at the military airfield, are loaded onto Flight 93. If you've put some of your own agents aboard, they stay on the ground, of course.

* Flight is taken aloft.

* Flight 93 is shot down or bombed -- makes no difference which. Main deal is to destroy that human meat without questions. Easiest way to dispose of 15,000 lbs. of human flesh, and nobody gets a headline if they find a foot in their front garden. No mass graves will ever be discovered, either.

* The trail is further confused by issuing reports that Flight 77 was actually headed towards the White House but changed course.

* The trail is further confused by having the Washington Post wax lyrical about the flying skills of non-existent pilots on a non-existence plane (Flight 77).

* The trail is further confused with conflicting reports and artificial catfight issues, such as -- did The Presidential Shrub really see the first tower hit on TV while he was waiting to read the story about the pet goat ...

So we know the Boeing that used to be Flight 93 was blown up. The other three original Boeings (Flights 11, 175, 77) still exist somewhere, unless they were cut up for scrap.

The passengers and crews of Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93 died in an airplane crash, just like the newspapers said. Only for most of them, it was the wrong crash. But that's as close to the truth as the news media likes to get anyway, so it works.

- much more . . .

http://www.public-action.com/911/bumble.html

[Yupster]

26. See

n/t

[OneBlueSky]

28. hey . . . you asked . . .

I didn't say this is what happened . . . only that it's one theory . . . and it makes just as much sense as the "official" version . . . possibly more . . .

[OneBlueSky]

21. with all that happened during BushCo's reign . . .

and all that's come out (and continues to come out) about everything from Enron to missing WMD's to the Palme affair (etc, etc, etc), seems to me that anyone who does NOT believe that this whole administration is one big conspiracy that has spawned any number of sub-conspiracies are either naive or haven't been paying attention . . .

[LoZoccolo]

23. HERE! HERE!

Dingdingdingdingdingdingdingding! :bounce:

[LoZoccolo]

24. I expect the "yes" votes to come rolling in any minute now.

:toast:

[maggrwaggr]

25. exactly and that's the problem

because people who spew out the kind of crap like you posted above (regarding 9/11 and fake remote-controlled planes etc) just kill skeptics like myself who simply don't buy the spoon-feeding.

People can then point to the nutcases (or disinformation artists -- hm, there's another conspiracy theory, no?) and say "these are the same people who believe that __________"

And then we're all painted with the "kook" brush.

[OneBlueSky]

27. all I said is "here's one theory" . . .

and, frankly, based on the known facts about what happened on 9/11 (as opposed to what we have been told happened), this theory is at least as credible as the "official" story . . . possibly more so . . . both are pretty far-fetched, both rely on unproveable allegations, and both require huge suspensions of disbelief . . . but at least the "conspiracy" theory I posted has some degree internal logic to it . . .

[BevHarris]

22. All corporations are run by a conspiracy

think about it.

[ArkDem]

31. Yes and all governments as well!

AAAaaaaiiiiieeeeEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[TomNickell]

29. I don't think you amused them.

And I don't think they see the point.

[LoZoccolo]

30. Hahahaha!

:thumbsup:

[Generator]

32. Well the thing is you may be right but

the "conspiracy theorists" are my people. They always make me think and question and not accept what I've been told. I may not agree with a lot of whatever they come up with, but at least they are thinking, questioning and interesting!

Dull, apathetic, and uncurious-life is too damn short for the party line.

[Paragon]

33. You FReeper!!!!!

"What about Tuskegee, COINTELPRO, and Pop Rocks & Coke!!! You must believe everything you're told!"

:silly:

Thank you for posting this thread. I've had my share of fun times with some of those chuckleheads, and that's always the first rabbit out of the hat.

[jpgray]

35. Stuff like 'EMP on Wellstone's plane!' loses me

I can swing with conspiracy theorists so long as they don't espouse something that has zero basis on what facts are available. If you assume all the facts available are false and misrepresented, well, you can assume anything you wish to be the truth.

But to me conspiracy theorizing is a lot like being a prophet, or a psychic. You throw hundreds of darts, and only take credit for what hits the bullseye.