How naive they are. They have believed all of the stories in books and even films but they ignore that these authors and filmakers are in it for a profit. They discredit non-profit and independent investigations like those conducted by the Warren Commisssion and House select committe of Assassinations, yet they believe every story written in books about conspiracies. The Mark Lane's, Roger Stone's and even Jesse Ventura's have laughed their way to the bank making money off all of these gullible conspiracy theorists. Conspiracy theorists question everything the government does, don't want to believe anything their government says yet they readily swallow all of the stories hurled at them by frauds like Mark Lane and Roger Stone? This is the biggest joke of them all... how easy is it to make $$ of these poeple, no wonder there are so many conspiracy books out there.
All true with one exception. To myself the most amazing thing is they neevr bother to CHECK what the government said in the warren commission or HSCA they merely accept any accusations as though they are gospel. The government can and has lied duh. We should always hold the government up to intense scrutiny and accountability. But we must also remember that sometimes the government gets it right. After all most of the murderers in prison are guilty. Most reasonable people would agree that an intelligent person SHOULD listen to or become familiar with BOTH sides of an argument or debate or controversy before deciding which side is correct. Twoofers and conspiracy theorists only pay attention to one side while flat out ignoring any inconvenient facts and then claim greater intelligence.
My biggest problem with conspiracy theories is that they rely upon assumptions as glue to connect facts together to present some nefarious activity. My biggest fear when it comes to conspiracy theory is that every once in a blue moon one turns out to be true.
From Scientific American Why People Believe in Conspiracies http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-people-believe-in-conspiracies
Yep . . . and then -- whammo! -- it turns out that some conspiracy theories were true after all: Whenever official answers to obvious questions are either not forthcoming or fail the logic 'smell test' then conspiracy theorists have a field day. Most of them inevitably turn out to be either partially or wholly wrong of course, but sometimes they turn out to have been correct regarding the most important point, that some part of -- usually -- a government was lying to the people. That's why Benghazi-gate is not going away. Too many of the official government answers simply reek to high heaven.
Actually conspiracy theories have never been true. I will concede however that someday one MIGHT turn out to be true. You named examples but they do not in fact support this. The reichstag fire for example has never been proven to be the work of the nazis and the courts lessening of the sentence of Van der Lubbe is a lessening not a reversal. This CT has been around for decades and is still a mystery and unresolved. Watergate was never a conspiracy THEORY it was in fact a real conspiracy. Real conspiracies differ vastly from conspiracy theory because conspiracies happen every day and they never work. Someone always talks or squels or blows the whistle on others thus exposing the conspiracy. Watergate is the classic example of this. Ironically many Theorists implicate some of the guys involved in watergate in Kennedy's murder. No one can explain how some government " agents " were able to assassinate the president and leave no evidence while keeping their lips shut but then a few years later bungled a simple hotel burglary and started throwing each other under the bus. Watergate has always been the evidence that conspiracy teories are wrong. NO ONE can keep such secrets and it is impossible to silence all the people involved by murdering them. I admit I am not familiar with your other examples so I'll only state that if they were ever conspiracy theories they were very small ones.
While I enjoy the intellectual challenge of weaving together conspiracy theories from time to time, I am almost never emotionally invested enough in them to recall facts or suppositions years later. I have my fun and move on. Some things, however, do tend to stick in the mind. Many, many years ago I was helping a college student write a research paper on Pearl Harbor and whether or not Admiral Kimmel and General Short were actually guilty as charged. Well, during the process I read a book titled 'And I was There'. I forget the fellow's name off hand, but he was as I recall the Pearl Harbor intelligence officer and then later on became an admiral (I think it was Admiral Layton). Anyway he uncovered a single, lone memo from one of Roosevelt's aides in which it was admitted that Roosevelt had fully intended to send a U.S. ensign PT boat skipper with an expendable Filipino crew into the projected path of a segment of the Japanese fleet in hopes that the Japanese would take the opportunity to eliminate the PT boat and crew and thus give Roosevelt the excuse to go to war. This was supposed to have happened on -- ironically -- the day on which the Japanese actually went ahead and attacked Pearl Harbor. So -- assuming that I am not lying about this or that my memory is even worse than I think it is -- that would mean that Roosevelt was about to deliberately sacrifice a single ship/boat and crew in order to go to war; exactly what some conspiracy theorists accused him of doing in regards to Pearl Harbor . . . just not exactly the same thing after all. I'd like to find that memo again and see if my memory is playing tricks on me or not; but I don't care enough about it in fact to wade through that huge tome.
Government often does generate many contradictory ideas. Therefore any part of such a scheme of FDR is POSSIBLE. I have to say though it sounds unlikely simple because in 1938 the Japanese attacked and sank a US navy vessel which the US replied to with diplomatic outrage. FDR surely would have known that simply sinking a small naval vessel would be unlikey to trigger a war.
Different year, different degree of world tensions, different set of groundwork laid, different desire by the guy in charge. The chances are good that Roosevelt could have used the 'incident' to goad the U.S. into the war. But we will never know.
Oh, shut up. You've begun your post with a blanket ad hominem. You haven't even agreed with anyone else about what constitutes a "conspiracy theorist" in the first place. Is it someone who believes in conspiracies? Because history is demonstrably littered with conspiracies, pal. If you don't believe that conspiracies happen and you're calling other people naive then you need to be examined by a medical professional.
In the wake of 9/11 you guys just invented a word which basically compels you to laugh at anything the structure of power tells you to ridicule. Open your ******ned eyes. You cannot seriously still believe that Osama bin Laden committed those attacks and not Israeli intelligence.
Aaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh..........we're going from one insanity to another! Where's the door out of this Cuckoo's nest?????
Your right he never stated what makes a conspiracy teorist but I did.\ Conspiracies happen all the time but never work becase someone always blows the secret. Conspiracy theorists ignore this fact and believe in vast works of fiction which contradict reality. And of course they never offer any proof that their theories are correct.A
The word was around long before 911 little guy. There is no evience of any kind implicating any israeli in or out of intelligence and overwhelming evidence that Bin Laden ordered the attack. The one responding with knee jerk loyalty to what he is told is you. A few idiots tell you what to think and you do so without question. You prove mike is correct calling you naive
This is an obviously fallacious claim. And a very boring one. Firstly, if nobody blows the secret then you don't find out about the conspiracy, so therefore it is impossible to determine how often the secret is blown. Secondly, "someone blowing the secret" is another way (in the case of 9/11) of admitting to the mass murder of 3,000 Americans and then lying about it. What possible incentive would anybody guilty of that crime have to admit it? It is contrary to every one of their interests. Thirdly, the towers were very clearly blown up by an Israeli orphan team, so it was outsourced. Only idiots sh!t where they eat. Fourthly, your argument that there are no whistle blowers is false in the first place. They are littered everywhere. One example is Niaz Naik, the Pakistani Foreign Secretary who claimed American officials had told him in July 2001 that Afghanistan would be invaded by October 2001. Another is the State Department source who leaked the WTC tapes to Susan Lindauer. You're using a typically generic and false argument which doesn't stand up to a moment's scrutiny.
In case you're wondering what happened to Niaz Naik, by the way, he was found murdered, with his face bashed in, in 2009. http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/politics/09-Aug-2009/Niaz-Naik-found-murdered
Save it for the 911 threads. The towers were not clearly blown up they collapsed due to damage and fire andno evidence of any kind links the attack to israel. Yes terrorists admit to their crimes because their crimes are idealologically motivated.
Yes they were. To anybody with one of the following three gifts:- A) Eyesight. B) Basic knowledge of classical mechanics. C) Common sense. Professor Harrit found evidence of the nano-thermite which brought them down. Evidence which NIST deliberately failed to test for. So yes, they were clearly blown up. No, they did not. The buildings weighed half a million tons each. They did not symmetrically collapse into their own footprints one at a time because of local office fires five sixths of the way up the building. And don't even talk to me about the jet fuel, which exploded inside the presssurised fuel tanks of the planes as they impacted the buildings. Already incinerated jet fuel coming back to fuel a fire. That sure is a good one. Seriously though, I'll have a pint of whatever evil beverage makes people ignore the laws of physics. It must be a hell of a trip. Can you fly and stuff?
All of your claims are absolutely false but save it for the 911 threads where they will be proven false and your fictional beliefs are regularly destroyed this is about JFK
The debunkers are getting desperate. They are hanging on to any kind of hope that people who don't understand building construction will believe their fairytales. Buildings don't just fall down. Thousands of professional architects and engineers, building experts from around the world, some with over 40 years building experience, disagree with you, Soupnazi. Experts Speak Out [video=youtube;X-V1CiuGMJo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-V1CiuGMJo&feature=relmfu[/video] Those of you who still believe that airplanes knocked the WTC Towers down and that fires brought WTC Building 7 down owe it to yourself to watch these high rise building experts ask questions. It is professionally produced.
They aren't claims, they are facts. Professor Harrit is a scientist, so he deals in the empirical. Your claim that my facts are claims is false.
