Conspiracy Theories for Cynics
Discussion
Robb F said:
Colonial said:
scherzkeks said:
Not very convincing IMO. Misrepresentation, as well as outright fabrication are present in abundance. That you are persudaded by this particular piece again suggests that you have not looked into the opposing research at more than a superficial level.
The author of this piece also uses the snarky perjorative "truthers," is hyperbolic and emotional, and mixes in characters like Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas (not that they didn't mean well) with those who present convincing scientific challenges to the NIST report.
Examples of outright fabrication? The author of this piece also uses the snarky perjorative "truthers," is hyperbolic and emotional, and mixes in characters like Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas (not that they didn't mean well) with those who present convincing scientific challenges to the NIST report.
The fact he can't see that, and instead is willing to call actual scientific evidence 'outright fabrication', just demonstrates how invested he is. The parallels with those of deep religious conviction are clear - any evidence against their position is rubbished or ignored as it challenges the core of their identity.
If it wasn't for the buckets of money Gage is piling up selling his story to gullible or damaged individuals, I would almost feel pity for him.
Colonial said:
Examples of outright fabrication?
Explosive "primer paint," for starters (you do realize you can easily google responses to most of this "debunker's" claims all by yourself?).http://stj911.org/blog/325/why-the-redgray-chips-a...
Colonial said:
Truthers call themselves truthers. It's less pejorative than "tin foil nutcases".
No it's actually a synonymous with the latter. That little suffix means a lot to the incurious. Without it, they could't attempt to shut down debate before it even starts.scherzkeks said:
Explosive "primer paint," for starters (you do realize you can easily google responses to most of this "debunker's" claims all by yourself?).
http://stj911.org/blog/325/why-the-redgray-chips-a...
So a link to a paper, self-published and not peer reviewed, of a guy quoted on TV as saying the following:http://stj911.org/blog/325/why-the-redgray-chips-a...
"Now, ain't it stupid to believe the official conspiracy theory without having been presented one single piece of evidence? Who are the fools?"
"There were two airliners, but three skyscrapers. You don't need a scientist to count to three."
"My major point: Everyone is lying, everyone is scared. So we have to trust ourselves, and it is not so hard."
Who allegedly tested red-gray chips provided to him, without any documented chain of custody, by Steven Jones, who has himself refused any independent testing of the chips, or any attempt to prove exactly where they came from. No-one has independently verified that those red-gray chips ever came from anywhere in the vicinity of the WTC.
The editor of the publication the paper was published in, The Open Chemical Physics Journal, herself a professor with expertise in explosives, resigned in protest at the inclusion of the article, which caused a scandal at Bentham Science Publishing in which a number of people resigned when it came to light they were publishing articles as peer-reviewed which were clearly not peer-reviewed.
Try actually using Google to expand your viewpoint, rather than to regurgitate nonsense.
So, I took a trip into London on Wednesday, Overground train was packed.
A little old fella struck up a conversation with two young guys in their early twenties I guess, who had probably been looking at his (Hollie Greig) T-shirt.
"Yeah, us truthers are used to being ridiculed" he said as described the case of Hollie Grieg. (I haven't looked into this myself, so have no opinion on it), however he then went on to say "You know 9/11 was an inside job don't you?", to which the two guys said "Yeah, totally, controlled demolition"
A little old fella struck up a conversation with two young guys in their early twenties I guess, who had probably been looking at his (Hollie Greig) T-shirt.
"Yeah, us truthers are used to being ridiculed" he said as described the case of Hollie Grieg. (I haven't looked into this myself, so have no opinion on it), however he then went on to say "You know 9/11 was an inside job don't you?", to which the two guys said "Yeah, totally, controlled demolition"
I know I'm repeating myself but it's hard to believe that people are still regurgitating 9/11 conspiracies (unless you're 16). Ok maybe it's not hard to believe, conspiracy theories are exciting.
This was the site I was referring to the other day - http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumd... - it has a ridiculous amount of 9/11 information, if you have six months to spare.
This was the site I was referring to the other day - http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumd... - it has a ridiculous amount of 9/11 information, if you have six months to spare.
Russwhitehouse said:
Coming back to David Icke, anyone have any idea what caused a level headed sportsman and later commentator to turn into a raving loony? Did he have some sort of breakdown or "episode"? It genuinely puzzles me as he delivers all this giant lizards claptrap with genuine sincerity, or at least seems to.
Occasionally he's on the radio talking about football, and sounds quite sensible! maxxy5 said:
dudleybloke said:
The US missing nukes stories are pretty interesting.
What are the theories? I know they've lost several! The 2013 event happened the day before people were warned of a potential nuclear attack on south Carolina unless the US invaded Syria and dealt with Assad.
Both incidents weapons were moved without the correct procedures being carried out.
dudleybloke said:
The 2007 event when 6 nukes got lost for 36 hours led to the untimely deaths of 8 people connected to the scandal.
I found some conspiracy sites for that one (no mention of 8 people dying though, only 6) Two of the men listed died over a month before the incident, one seems to have been from a Florida air base, not N. Dakota or Louisiana, so I don't see the link.
The other death sounds quite straightforward (from a newspaper report at the time)
"The two were traveling behind a northbound Pontiac Aztec driven by Erica Jerry, 35, of Shreveport, said Cindy Chadwick, spokeswoman for the Caddo Sheriff's office. Jerry initiated a left turn in the 5100 block of Shreveport-Blanchard Highway into a business parking lot at the same time Clint Huff attempted to pass her van on the left in a no passing zone and they collided, Chadwick said."
So that's three deaths of people after the event from the bases involved, in two incidents. One unknown cause and one motorcycle accident. Number of military personnel at Minot (currently) - 6,000.
Also I bet the death rate for young servicemen (suicide, motorbikes etc etc) is a fair bit higher than the average population.
Here's another nuclear close call from the 60s - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/20/usaf-...
qube_TA said:
jmorgan said:
One of his theories is we are controlled from the Moon? He knows what he is talking about then.
We all are, the tidal effect of the Moon has influenced evolution.If he thinks we're controlled by the moon, he's a lunatic!
TwigtheWonderkid said:
And so has our orbit of the sun, giving us day and night and seasons. That's not quite the same as being contrlled by the moon.
If he thinks we're controlled by the moon, he's a lunatic!
I know it was a pun, but apparently:If he thinks we're controlled by the moon, he's a lunatic!
n.
1540s, "condition of being a lunatic," formed in English from lunatic + -cy. Originally in reference to intermittent periods of insanity, such as were believed to be triggered by the moon's cycle.
Even the OED is in on it.
I remember when I was a teen and first heard about Roswell and objects on Mars and the Moon etc I was convinced for a time that something was going on.
Bought all kinds of books and magazines about the unexplained and cover ups.
The problem with them all is that none of them are compatible with each other to to try and make sense of all the theories to make them fit to the 'NWO' idea.
They start to unravel quite quickly and become obvious that they can't be true.
I once read an article in Fortean Times about the 'evolution of an UFOlogist' which summed it up nicely.
It basically stated that one starts thinking that UFO's are probably nonsense, then learns about them and starts investigating the stories, concludes from the wealth of stories that there must be a cover up, how else can you account for all the stories. Then those stories and tales start to conflict, logic and reason also gets in the way, eventually the whole idea collapses and the original conclusion that they're probably nonsense returns.
Bought all kinds of books and magazines about the unexplained and cover ups.
The problem with them all is that none of them are compatible with each other to to try and make sense of all the theories to make them fit to the 'NWO' idea.
They start to unravel quite quickly and become obvious that they can't be true.
I once read an article in Fortean Times about the 'evolution of an UFOlogist' which summed it up nicely.
It basically stated that one starts thinking that UFO's are probably nonsense, then learns about them and starts investigating the stories, concludes from the wealth of stories that there must be a cover up, how else can you account for all the stories. Then those stories and tales start to conflict, logic and reason also gets in the way, eventually the whole idea collapses and the original conclusion that they're probably nonsense returns.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff