slowtrain
Well-known member
Oh those illuminati!
Reinvestigating 9/11
- Thread starter lanugo
- Start date
Oh those illuminati!
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
How is that even potentially a disciplinary offence? Have they had a complaint from Illuminati community leaders?
lanugo
von Verfall erzittern
The wealth of links to substantial articles I provided and an engaging and matter-of-factly debate that unfolded with craner notwithstanding, this thread has now officially descended into an amateur theatre stage where self-indulgent losers are allowed to make their infantile and worn-out jokes in front of an awed audience of imbeciles. Da Vinci's remark comes to mind: "What is humanity but fillers of a cloaca."
Anway, the gravity of the subject matter commands to counter the tide of non-sense unleashed by Mr.Tea and Co. After all, there was some acceptable coverage by the corporate media during last weekend's commemorative simulacra.
Here's Truth going mainstream in a Guardian article by Charlie Skelton who attended a critical 9/11 conference in NY:
Furthermore, the ever informative alternative media keeps bringing to the surface nugget after nugget of unwelcome information, for example this 2004 article by the Washington Post titled "FAA Managers Destroyed 9/11 Tape":
And here's a link to indepedent journalist James Corbett's podcast episode "35 Reasons to Question 9/11" that is such a towering achievement in well-documented investigation that every person with intellectual integrity simply can't dismiss it as 'conspiracy theory'.
Anway, the gravity of the subject matter commands to counter the tide of non-sense unleashed by Mr.Tea and Co. After all, there was some acceptable coverage by the corporate media during last weekend's commemorative simulacra.
Here's Truth going mainstream in a Guardian article by Charlie Skelton who attended a critical 9/11 conference in NY:
Furthermore, the ever informative alternative media keeps bringing to the surface nugget after nugget of unwelcome information, for example this 2004 article by the Washington Post titled "FAA Managers Destroyed 9/11 Tape":
And here's a link to indepedent journalist James Corbett's podcast episode "35 Reasons to Question 9/11" that is such a towering achievement in well-documented investigation that every person with intellectual integrity simply can't dismiss it as 'conspiracy theory'.
crackerjack
Well-known member
God, that Guardian piece is pish. The same old pleas to faith ("begin thinking, stop believing") masquerading as 'critical thinking'.
Odd how troofers always bring up Reichstag too, since the official story – that it was the work of one lone communist – is probably true. Not as clear-cut as 9/11 mind.
Odd how troofers always bring up Reichstag too, since the official story – that it was the work of one lone communist – is probably true. Not as clear-cut as 9/11 mind.
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
have you ever considered directing your energies towards something less solipsistic than your own wish for all the world to be a conspiracy theory? There doesn't seem anything more self-indulgent than that. or go and talk about this somewhere where people will uncritically agree with what you say and give you the validation you so sorely require.
Last edited:
slowtrain
Well-known member
I will put in my two cents here (in a foreign currency no doubt, kroner or something that is basically worthless, two francs maybe):
Anyway, there is a really good article by the philosopher Neil Levy.
In it, he argues that we, the stupid uneducated public, when looking to assess which of the two stories we should believe in, should look to the one that is put forward by the 'properly constituted epistemic authorities' - i.e, by the experts. The story that is put forward by the Universities, the scholars, researchers, media (sometimes), etc.
The reasoning behind this is that it is irrational to rely on these mechanisms for our knowledge of so much things (and we do 'know' things through these mechanisms - I mean I know that a car engine works and I trust that I will - but I have no idea how it or why it works - that knowledge is stored in other institutions) but then to turn around and deny them.
For instance, do I believe a youtube video or a blog post about the structural integrity of the WTC, or do I believe the research carried out by Purdue University?
It's not about saying which story is true (OK - I know thats what this thread about, but I will leave to that people are aware of the actual details) but about which story one is warranted in believing.
Anyway, thats not strictly relevant, just my two scents. (Hopefully they smell OK)
Anyway, there is a really good article by the philosopher Neil Levy.
In it, he argues that we, the stupid uneducated public, when looking to assess which of the two stories we should believe in, should look to the one that is put forward by the 'properly constituted epistemic authorities' - i.e, by the experts. The story that is put forward by the Universities, the scholars, researchers, media (sometimes), etc.
The reasoning behind this is that it is irrational to rely on these mechanisms for our knowledge of so much things (and we do 'know' things through these mechanisms - I mean I know that a car engine works and I trust that I will - but I have no idea how it or why it works - that knowledge is stored in other institutions) but then to turn around and deny them.
For instance, do I believe a youtube video or a blog post about the structural integrity of the WTC, or do I believe the research carried out by Purdue University?
It's not about saying which story is true (OK - I know thats what this thread about, but I will leave to that people are aware of the actual details) but about which story one is warranted in believing.
Anyway, thats not strictly relevant, just my two scents. (Hopefully they smell OK)
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
The thing is, classic conspiracy theorists work on exactly the opposite basis: the more official and professional a source of evidence seems to be (e.g. a report by a panel of experts at a reputable university, as you mention), the less it should be trusted, since the higher up you go in the social/political/academic hierarchy, the closer you get to the shadowy They who control everything, so the more likely that information is to be compromised, incomplete or totally falsified.
By extension, the less official and professional the source, the more trustworthy the information - hence the reliance on home-made videos uploaded to Youtube, badly laid-out websites full of unformatted text and animated .gifs, etc.; in pre-web days I guess it would have been home-printed pamphlets and street demagogues with megaphones and hand-drawn placards. This relates to a phenomenon I've seen called the Galileo Effect, although I'd noticed it long before I'd heard that name for it: namely, the line of reasoning that goes "Galileo was persecuted by the ignorant masses for his theories, yet they turned out to be true: I'm 'persecuted' [called a crank] by the ignorant masses, therefore - like Galileo - my theories will eventually be recognised as true (and even if they aren't, they're still true)."
Last edited:
crackerjack
Well-known member
Ar recently peddled by climate denier Chris Perry.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Exactly, he's the guy who explicitly invoked Galileo but it's a gambit that cranks and mountebanks have used since forever. "They called me crazy, just like they called Einstein crazy..."
Of course it works especially well in the context of an American conservative banging on about the alleged "liberal" bias of mainstream American media. Man, that Fox News network kills me with its relentless pro-gay, anti-Jesus, tree-hugging pinko agenda!
Last edited:
outraygeous
Well-known member
I used to believe in challenging things but then I realised, what's the point?
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
There is none, if lanugo and his ilk are to be believed, since They are all-seeing, all-knowing and all-powerful.
slowtrain
Well-known member
Yeah, conspiracy theories are probably the only thing in the world where evidence against them is actually evidence for them.
That said, (I wouldn't consider myself a conspiracy theorist though) but I would not be very likely to trust official government lines on things, but I would trust universities.
slowtrain
Well-known member
So basically I'm saying what I am sure everyone here already knows - that that form of reasoning is totally bunk and inconsistent.
(Because evidence that goes against the C.T. will be manipulated by 'They', but if someone equally high up produces some evidence for the C.T., it will be of course true and lauded.)
(Because evidence that goes against the C.T. will be manipulated by 'They', but if someone equally high up produces some evidence for the C.T., it will be of course true and lauded.)
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Nail on head. Conspiracy theories tend overwhelmingly to be unfalsifiable because any objection can be met with a rejoinder of "That's what They want you to think", and any inconsistency can be 'explained' by extending the conspiracy to the next layer up in the global control scheme. For example, perhaps the most obvious response to claims that the Apollo moon landings were faked is the fact that Soviet scientists admitted that they'd tracked an object leaving the earth, travelling to the moon and then coming back to earth - surely the Soviet government, of all interested parties, would have loved to expose a 'faked' American moon landing? Whereas Brezhnev actually sent a congratulatory telegram to the Whitehouse, acknowleding the success of NASA's Apollo 11 mission.
Now I read somewhere that the 'official' conspiracy-theory explanation for this is that the Soviet government was bought off with shipments of grain. This is the same Soviet government which, just a few decades previously, had deliberately engineered a famine in which up to eight million of its own citizens died. Pathetic.
Now I read somewhere that the 'official' conspiracy-theory explanation for this is that the Soviet government was bought off with shipments of grain. This is the same Soviet government which, just a few decades previously, had deliberately engineered a famine in which up to eight million of its own citizens died. Pathetic.
Last edited:
pattycakes_
Can turn naughty
i think it's worth pointing out though, that it also works the other way 'round. i.e. anything sounding slightly out of the basic reality 'they' feed the public through the mainstream news immediately gets called a conspiracy theory. which obviously is correct, it is a theory, but the stigma attached to that term is imo unjust. just because most conspiracy theories have more in common with what happens in fiction than what we're shown on the news doesn't mean we should instantly disregard them. there are plenty of extremely fucked up, elaborate plots and schemes carried out by governments all the time that have been proved and occasionally admitted to that fall into this category.
it surprises me how many apparently intelligent and well read people instantly reject anything resembling a conspiracy theory. for some reason they don't seem to be able/willing to open their minds enough to even entertain the ideas. maybe i'm mistaken but it seems like there's this instant reaction to anything out of the rationally explainable where it has to be mocked and taken down as quickly as possible with little desire to even discuss it. knowing what we do know, as in the devious kinds of things our governments get up to, (e.g. selling weapons to the very countries we end up fighting/funding rebel forces to violently topple governments who's politics we don't agree with) is it really not even worth going over these ideas?
i fell like lanugo has put across some points in this thread that are worth discussing. but most people are content with casting them off or mocking it and moving on. a small few have pointed to counter arguments, but still don't really seem keen on delving into it. i get that it's tiresome to many, and also amusing to wind up the theorists. but i'd really like to know why most people are reluctant to even get into it? it feels like it's the easy way out to put an 'irrational' type tag on these ideas and then move on.
i really wonder whether i'm missing the point here. but i'm a layman when it comes to politics, so forgive me if i'm being naive. obviously there are other places to discuss this, but i dunno, this forum seems pretty broad in it's topics. why not this one?
it surprises me how many apparently intelligent and well read people instantly reject anything resembling a conspiracy theory. for some reason they don't seem to be able/willing to open their minds enough to even entertain the ideas. maybe i'm mistaken but it seems like there's this instant reaction to anything out of the rationally explainable where it has to be mocked and taken down as quickly as possible with little desire to even discuss it. knowing what we do know, as in the devious kinds of things our governments get up to, (e.g. selling weapons to the very countries we end up fighting/funding rebel forces to violently topple governments who's politics we don't agree with) is it really not even worth going over these ideas?
i fell like lanugo has put across some points in this thread that are worth discussing. but most people are content with casting them off or mocking it and moving on. a small few have pointed to counter arguments, but still don't really seem keen on delving into it. i get that it's tiresome to many, and also amusing to wind up the theorists. but i'd really like to know why most people are reluctant to even get into it? it feels like it's the easy way out to put an 'irrational' type tag on these ideas and then move on.
i really wonder whether i'm missing the point here. but i'm a layman when it comes to politics, so forgive me if i'm being naive. obviously there are other places to discuss this, but i dunno, this forum seems pretty broad in it's topics. why not this one?
Last edited by a moderator:
slowtrain
Well-known member
I completely agree with this post.
I don't think that any (well, for the most part) theory can be ruled out completely a priori. The method I outlined is sort of a 'meta-evaluation' of conspiracy theories, but in no way do I think that it should replace actually looking at the real evidence and questioning the various stories.
Basically, all that I think you should be entitled to say when using that method is 'I will believe the official story until proven otherwise' - NOT 'The conspiracy theory is false and untrue'.
And of course saying that you will believe the official story until proven otherwise doesn't mean you should sit back and just forget about it, accept in unquestionably, it just means that that is the one you are warranted in believing.
I think its good to be generally sceptical of most things though.
crackerjack
Well-known member
Because I don't accept that these are good points. For the most part the tactic consists of highlighting possible anomalies in the official story and then concluding the whole thing must be one big lie. It's one thing being open to conspiracies – this one, for instance – quite another indulging cranks and bullshitters.
pattycakes_
Can turn naughty
crackerjack
Well-known member
Thing is, this seems pretty uncontroversial to me - the Aden war mightn't be top of the history syllabus but the idea that it (and Suez and Iran '54) is a secret that no one ever talks about is just plain wrong (as its appearance in the centre of a BBC documentary indicates). It's also a long, long way from false-flag operations killing thousands of your own citizens.