Why People Believe in Conspiracies

[rambaldi]

Its obviously a foreign concept to you but people actually think for themselves.

People perhaps, but conspiracists?

Quite frankly the number of them who are unable to put the content of the YT-Videos they claim to be evidence for whatevertheybeleieve into own words, suggests otherwise.

[flyingswan]

Some conspiracy theories that were laughed at in the past turned out to be true, so it would also be idiocy to write off every conspiracy theory as hokum just because you have a grudge against "tin hat types" or fear out side of the box thinkers. I am not talking about illogical theories here like the flat earth kind of claims, only ones that can happen in reality, like governmental, war based, fascist, or political conspiracies etc.

Not that many. Conspiracies are uncovered all the time, but the only one I can think of that was speculated about, ie was a conspiracy theory, before it turned out to be true was the allegation during the Cold War that left-wing organisations in the West were in the pay of the Soviet Union. Come Glasnost and the Russians admitted it.

Edited March 2, 2011 by flyingswan

[Stundie]

If the "evidence" was consistent one would expect an agreed hypothesis that explained it.

Exactly, so if the evidence was consistent with a natural collapse, then there would be no need for alternative theories, but because the official story comes up short and doesn't explain all the phenomena, then alternatives exist.

The fact that truthers argue among themselves suggests that they are picking which things they like and which things they don't on some other basis than evidence.

They are arguing amongst themselves because they don't agree with each others hypothesis.

The point is that they all agree is that the official story is wrong.

So what is the evidence that the official story is wrong, what is the agreed piece of evidence that falsifys it?

There is too much to evidence but the time that Dick Cheney arrived at the PEOC for instance clearly falsifies it.

Neither does it disprove the official story.

The official story is wrong, if it was rock solid, then there wouldn't be any need for alternatives.

Because you haven't shown that the official story is wrong.

I have shown you in the other thread that Dick Cheneys arrival time at the PEOC is wrong.

You all claim that it is, but you argue about why.

We don't argue about why, we know why the official story is wrong. What there is disagreement about is the alternative theory. i.e. if the official story didn't happen, then what happened.

Just because there is no agreement between 2 parties, doesn't mean that the official story is right.

If there was a "smoking gun", you'd all agree on it.

We all agree that the official story doesn't add up.

You seem to be claiming that a single explosion could bring down each building, but you don't explain how.

I don't need to explain how because you believe that no explosions were needed.

So anything more than none would still bring down the building according to your own logic. lol

Unless you do, your claim is just pointless speculation.

It was never a claim, it was highlighting that your pointed is flawed. lol

It could have been nano thermite, or a death ray, or remote-control airliners or any of the many ways proposed, but "could have been" isn't proof of anything.

No, but you can't prove how it collapsed either.

The official story has a detailed collapse mechanism for each building that fits facts like the observed bowing of the walls of the Towers or the penthouse collapse of WTC7.

hahahahahahaha!! Perposterous!! lol

Any alternative must not just poke holes in this, but also show how it fits these observations.

If there are holes in it, then it's not worth much.

And more importantly, no alternatives are needed. If the official story is flawed, then it's flawed regardless of whether there are better or worse theories out there. lol

If the structures were that near to collapse, you wouldn't need an explosion at all.

Exactly, so why is a CD theory not possible then?

Either you need a big demolition effort because impact/fire isn't enough, or you accept the official story.

What a load of hypocritical nonsense.....lol

If you believe that the towers collapse without explosives, then simply put any amount explosives above NONE would still cause the building to collapse.

Like I said, unless you think by adding explosives would somehow cause the structure to survive?? lol

[flyingswan]

We don't argue about why, we know why the official story is wrong.

Quite, never mind the evidence, your mind is made up.

You still don't get it, do you? It isn't enough to say that the official story is wrong, you have to first prove it, ie provide the "smoking gun", and then come up with an alternative that fits all the facts better. Unless you do that, all you have is an unfounded opinion.

For instance, if the only thing you have against the official story is Cheney's arrival at PEOC, (something that is by no means agreed, by the way), then an alternative hypothesis that says that the official story is true apart from Cheney confusing his arrival time would be a better fit. This is not a "smoking gun".

hahahahahahaha!! Perposterous!! lol

Is that an example of your logical reasoning?

Edited March 2, 2011 by flyingswan

[Stundie]

Quite, never mind the evidence, your mind is made up.

Hogwash. There is plenty of evidence which shows the official story is wrong, just because you choose to deny or ignore it doesn't mean there is no evidence, it's just means you are denying it or ignoring it. lol

You still don't get it, do you?

Yes, I do but it's obvious that you don't. lol

It isn't enough to say that the official story is wrong, you have to first prove it, ie provide the "smoking gun", and then come up with an alternative that fits all the facts better.

What a load of b******s!

You are right in that it isn't enough to say the official story is wrong, of course you have to prove it. So once it has been proven, then the official story is wrong.

It is not up to anyone to come up with an alternative that fits all the facts better....lol

If there is evidence the official story is wrong, then it is wrong, it doesn't automatically make it right again because someone can't provide a better theory. That statement alone highlights all that is wrong in your thinking and logic.

If the official story is proven wrong, then it is wrong. End of story!! lol

Unless you do that, all you have is an unfounded opinion.

I do not have to provide an alternative theory if I have already proven that the official theory is wrong.

And therefore it is not an unfounded opinion unless I claim something is wrong without supporting evidence.

For instance, if the only thing you have against the official story is Cheney's arrival at PEOC, (something that is by no means agreed, by the way), then an alternative hypothesis that says that the official story is true apart from Cheney confusing his arrival time would be a better fit. This is not a "smoking gun

Complete tosh!! hahahahahahaha!!!

Of course it's not agreed by you because you are denying and ignoring the facts. lol

If Dick Cheney himself says that he was in the PEOC before the Pentagon attack and Mineta agrees with him as well as Dick Clarke, then the official story is wrong and Cheney must have been there before 9:58am as the official story claims.

I do not need to provide any other hypothesis.

Also if you are claiming that Cheney is confused and that the official story is STILL CORRECT, then you have to provide EVIDENCE that Cheney is confused otherwise.....it's your over evaluated opinion. lol

Your opinion do no equal evidence! lol

Is that an example of your logical reasoning?

No, comments on your logic and arguments. lol

[flyingswan]

What a load of b******s!

You are right in that it isn't enough to say the official story is wrong, of course you have to prove it. So once it has been proven, then the official story is wrong.

It is not up to anyone to come up with an alternative that fits all the facts better....lol

If you cannot come up with an alternative that fits all the facts better than the official story, then the official story remains the best one, whether you like it or not. It's no good saying that the official story fits facts A, B and C, but is wrong about fact D if your alternative only fits D and is wrong about A, B and C.

[Space Commander Travis]

I must say, "What a load of b******s!" really advances one's argument.

[Stundie]

If you cannot come up with an alternative that fits all the facts better than the official story, then the official story remains the best one, whether you like it or not.

Although the official story might remain the best one.

That still doesn't make it correct when there is evidence which shows you it is wrong. lol

So while you are stuck on the best theory as you hilariously put it, which isn't correct but the best one because no one as come up with an alternative, then alternatives have to be allowed if you are a skeptic.

With that kind of thinking, it's a case of why bother making a better light source like a bulb (like the one which goes off in your head! ), when we already have the best light.....candles. lol

You are arguing your personal beliefs not what theories are possible or not.

It's no good saying that the official story fits facts A, B and C, but is wrong about fact D if your alternative only fits D and is wrong about A, B and C.

But what if there are facts D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L and so on and so forth that refute or show your best theory is wrong, do you then ignore all these because they don't work with your best theory?? lol

I'll tell you what, lets not derail this thread. It's descended in to 9/11 which some posters said it would and not why people believe in conspiracies.

So I'll be over on the Dick Cheney thread and we'll see exactly your best theory works out on there. lol

[Stundie]

I must say, "What a load of b******s!" really advances one's argument.

In the same way as posting a 9/11 debunking bible really advance ones arguments.

Fight fire with fire as they say. lol

[Q24]

So what is the evidence that the official story is wrong, what is the agreed piece of evidence that falsifys it?

See, this line you keep repeating is a prime example of pseudoskepticism.

You ask for evidence that the official theory is wrong whilst ignoring the fact that it has never been proven in the first place - it is you who need to provide this evidence in support of the case; it doesn’t automatically begin as ‘true’, no matter how much you would like it to be.

Let’s see what currently backs the official story…

• Well there’s the legal case against Osama bin Laden… no wait… there never has been such a legal case and if FBI comments are anything to go by then it would be laughed out of court anyway.
  
• Ok but there’s the 9/11 Commission Report… otherwise known as the Ommission Report… containing supposition, inaccuracies and which completely glosses over those intelligence (and many other) issues we have been discussing on the other thread.
  
• Aha the WTC collapse reports... hmmm… a hypothesis which NIST admit is unlikely at best and which completely ignores a whole host of evidence.
  
• I know, there’s the NTSB and FBI reports on the planes… which show flight paths of unidentified aircraft… with no black box or aircraft part serial numbers on record.
  

I could go on and in more detail but you get the idea – every aspect of the official theory is on flimsy grounds to begin with.

And you would like for us to provide evidence that it is wrong?

I’m sure it doesn’t work like that.

It needs to be proven that the theory is right, not proven that it is wrong.

Otherwise it shows that you are starting with the theory as your basis rather than the evidence… and we wouldn’t want to do that now would we?

Incidentally,

[acidhead]

See, this line you keep repeating is a prime example of pseudoskepticism.

You ask for evidence that the official theory is wrong whilst ignoring the fact that it has never been proven in the first place - it is you who need to provide this evidence in support of the case; it doesn’t automatically begin as ‘true’, no matter how much you would like it to be.

Let’s see what currently backs the official story…

• Well there’s the legal case against Osama bin Laden… no wait… there never has been such a legal case and if FBI comments are anything to go by then it would be laughed out of court anyway.
  
• Ok but there’s the 9/11 Commission Report… otherwise known as the Ommission Report… containing supposition, inaccuracies and which completely glosses over those intelligence (and many other) issues we have been discussing on the other thread.
  
• Aha the WTC collapse reports... hmmm… a hypothesis which NIST admit is unlikely at best and which completely ignores a whole host of evidence.
  
• I know, there’s the NTSB and FBI reports on the planes… which show flight paths of unidentified aircraft… with no black box or aircraft part serial numbers on record.
  

I could go on and in more detail but you get the idea – every aspect of the official theory is on flimsy grounds to begin with.

And you would like for us to provide evidence that it is wrong?

I’m sure it doesn’t work like that.

It needs to be proven that the theory is right, not proven that it is wrong.

Otherwise it shows that you are starting with the theory as your basis rather than the evidence… and we wouldn’t want to do that now would we?

Incidentally,

awesome.. freakin bulletproof Q24.. bring it flyingswan.. Q's winning

[Little Fish]

A 1+1=2

B - what evidence do you have?

A - if I take an apple and another apple, i have two apples.

B - but maybe it works only with apples.

A - I've tried with oranges, it works with those too.

B - have you tried pears?

A - no I don't have any pears.

B - it has not been demonstrated with pears, therefore it is not proven.

A - but mathematicians have proven it, here's the complex proof.

B - I don't understand that, its too complex and I'm not a mathematician, here's a debunking page with some stuff that casts doubt on it. its up to you to prove it.

A - here are videos of some more mathematicians proving it

B - you are relying on 3 "mathematicians", where are all the other hundreds of thousands of mathemticans? 99% of mathematicans are silent so they clearly disagree.

A - here's a youtube video using grapes and another using bananas, it clearly demonstrates 1+1=2

B - that guy looks funny, he's also put up a weird dancing video, why would you rely on evidence from a guy who publicly dances in his underpants?

A - what evidence do you have that 1+1 is not 2?

B - burden of proof is on you, until you demonstrate it with pears you have not proven it.

A - here is another video- 1 pear and another pear gives you 2 pears.

B - they don't look like pears to me.

A - they are green, they taper to the top where there is stalk, they are pears

B - they look blue-ish to me

A - that's the lighting

B - can you prove that, or preferably demonstrate in natural daylight

A - here's a paper regarding black body radiation and another discussing internal lighting effects

B - that guy believes in god and dyes his hair blue, we can't trust him with science, the other paper is not peer reviewed.

A - here's a similar paper that's been peer reviewed

B - that journal is not a respected journal, can you find one in a top journal.

A - no, I don't have access to the top journals.

B - you should leave mathematics to the proper mathematicans, you're not an expert.

A - I've reclalibrated the video, you can see it is green.

B - it looks yellowish to me.

A - I've redone the experiment in daylight conditions, here it is.

B - even if you have shown that 1 pear plus 1 pear equals 2 pears (which I don't accept) you only did the test on monday, what about other days of the week?

A - it's self evident.

B - there maybe soliton magnetic effects when 2 pears are placed together at the end of the week.

A - can you prove there are these effects?

B - burden of proof is on you, not me.

A - but you said soliton magnetic effects would affect pears.

B - well we just don't know, we can't jump to conclusions, until you "one-one-tooowers" prove pears are not affected by these effects, we don't know either way.

A - here's a petition with thousands of respected mathematicians and fruit farmers stating that 1+1=2

B - that's not evidence, what evidence do you have that 1+1=2, besides that could be an 'L' rather than a '1'

A - oh, eff off

B - you "one-one-toower" conspiracists resort to abuse because you have no evidence.

moderator - A is banned.

[flyingswan]

And you would like for us to provide evidence that it is wrong?

I’m sure it doesn’t work like that.

It needs to be proven that the theory is right, not proven that it is wrong.

I'm afraid you've got it completely backwards.

You can never, ever, prove that a hypothesis is right, there might always be the discovery of some new fact that will conflict with it. On the other hand, you can prove a hypothesis wrong by discovering such a conflicting fact. That's the scientific method in a nutshell.

The problem arises when the facts are not well established, or mutually conflicting as is usually the case with eyewitness evidence. All you can say then is that a hypothesis is the best fit to the available evidence.

[flyingswan]

But what if there are facts D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L and so on and so forth that refute or show your best theory is wrong, do you then ignore all these because they don't work with your best theory??

Two points:

First, what are these facts D to L that conflict with the official explantion to the extent that they disprove it completely and make an "inside job" the only possible explanation? Which of them is the "smoking gun" rather than a minor error? I've asked you this before and I'm still waiting for an answer.

Second, the trouble with your wildly differing versions of the conspiracy scenario is that one may fit perceived anomaly D, but miss E to L, the next fits E, but misses D and F to L, etc. If you think all these are important, you have to have a theory that includes them all. If you don't think some of them need to be considered, which of the common ones do you dismiss?

[flyingswan]

A 1+1=2

So? I could write a similar conversation where A's 1+1=2 corresponds to the official story and B's doubt to the conspiracy theory.

[flyingswan]

awesome.. freakin bulletproof Q24.. bring it flyingswan.. Q's winning

You wish.

[flyingswan]

In the same way as posting a 9/11 debunking bible really advance ones arguments.

Fight fire with fire as they say. lol

So providing a link with a lot of facts is "fire" and justifies a potty-mouthed return? Looks more like desperate resort to insult due to inability to counter said facts.

[Little Fish]

So? I could write a similar conversation where A's 1+1=2 corresponds to the official story and B's doubt to the conspiracy theory.

of course!

that was my point, one can use B's techniques to deny that 1+1=2, so logically one can use those techniques to deny EVERYTHING more complicated than 1+1=2. underlying B's argument is a philosophical method used by dogmatists that asserts that nothing is knowable.

therefore we can deduce the TECHNIQUE is not valid.

the question is then, which side is using those invalid techniques? I do not see Q24 or stundie using B's techniques.

your last post#92 was a rewording of B's last response, and B's techniques are used ad infinitum by offical story supporters.

the official story supporters who call themselves "skeptics" are in fact the exact opposite, they are dogmatists, who give a fake pretence that those labelled "conspiracy theorists" are dogmatic yet the "conspiracy theorists" are the true skeptics, it is weird mind looping that the debunkers revere skepticism yet practice the opposite.

"Timon Sextus Empiricus said that those who seek must deny they have found or can find, or persevere in the inquiry. Those who suppose they have found truth are called dogmatists, those who think it incompehensible are academics, those who still seek are skeptics" - secret teachings of all ages.

which side wants an investigation and which side doesn't want an investigation?

Edited March 3, 2011 by Little Fish

[flyingswan]

of course!

that was my point, one can use B's techniques to deny that 1+1=2, so logically one can use those techniques to deny EVERYTHING more complicated than 1+1=2. underlying B's argument is a philosophical method used by dogmatists that asserts that nothing is knowable.

therefore we can deduce the TECHNIQUE is not valid.

Trouble with that argument is that B is technically quite correct. There is no valid mathematical proof that 1+1=2. Russell and Whitehead published one in 1913, it ran to nearly 400 pages, but in 1931 Godel came along with his Incompleteness Theorum and undermined it.

your last post#92 was a rewording of B's last response

So? Are you claiming that profanity is a valid argument?

If A resorts to profanity, B is perfectly entitled to use that response.

That's not the only example of A using weak arguments in your sketch. For example:

I don't have access to the top journals and

here's a petition with thousands of respected mathematicians and fruit farmers stating that 1+1=2

Edited March 3, 2011 by flyingswan

[Little Fish]

Trouble with that argument is that B is technically quite correct. There is no valid mathematical proof that 1+1=2. Russell and Whitehead published one in 1913, it ran to nearly 400 pages, but in 1931 Godel came along with his Incompleteness Theorum and undermined it.

you accept that nothing can be proved, yet accept the official story and ask others to prove alternative theories.

Are you claiming that profanity is a valid argument?

profanity is a valid response to unsound logic and where you think the opposer is acting in bad faith, no one said profanity was THE argument, although you and 74700 implied it was the argument. You said "It isn't enough to say that the official story is wrong, you have to first prove it, ie provide the "smoking gun", and then come up with an alternative that fits all the facts better.."

this is unsound logic, as stundie pointed out here:

What a load of b******s!

You are right in that it isn't enough to say the official story is wrong, of course you have to prove it. So once it has been proven, then the official story is wrong.

It is not up to anyone to come up with an alternative that fits all the facts better....lol

If there is evidence the official story is wrong, then it is wrong, it doesn't automatically make it right again because someone can't provide a better theory. That statement alone highlights all that is wrong in your thinking and logic.

If the official story is proven wrong, then it is wrong. End of story!! lol

to pretend that the only argument that came from stundie was profanity is acting in bad faith, just like B's response to A, B has ignored all the argument that went before and responded as 74700 did and you did in post #92 to ONLY the profanity.

If A resorts to profanity, B is perfectly entitled to use that response.

yes, if A resorts SOLEY to profanity as an argument. when B acts like a dimwit or is suspected of acting out of bad faith by ignoring A's voluminous evidence, then A is entitled to respond with profanity (board rules aside).

That's not the only example of A using weak arguments in your sketch. For example:

I don't have access to the top journals and

here's a petition with thousands of respected mathematicians and fruit farmers stating that 1+1=2

yes, when evidence is viewed in isolation. To pretend that A has ONLY presented those points is a strawman, particularly so when A has presented numerous exmaples of very strong evidence. you have stated that it is impossible to prove 1+1=2, therefore a judgement has to be made on a cumulative argument based on the weight of evidence. you can't do that viewing evidence in isolation. A jury reviews all the evidence, it would be absurd to have a different jury review seperate pieces of evidence in isolation. Edited March 3, 2011 by Little Fish

[flyingswan]

you accept that nothing can be proved, yet accept the official story and ask others to prove alternative theories.

A hypothesis cannot be proven, but it can be dis-proven.

Where have I asked you to prove your theories? What I've been asking is for you to prove the official story wrong, and I'm still waiting to see the "smoking gun" that does that.

profanity is a valid response to unsound logic and where you think the opposer is acting in bad faith, no one said profanity was THE argument, although you and 74700 implied it was the argument. You said "It isn't enough to say that the official story is wrong, you have to first prove it, ie provide the "smoking gun", and then come up with an alternative that fits all the facts better.."

this is unsound logic, as stundie pointed out here:

to pretend that the only argument that came from stundie was profanity is acting in bad faith, just like B's response to A, B has ignored all the argument that went before and responded as 74700 did and you did in post #92 to ONLY the profanity.

Profanity is totally unnecessary on this forum, and to my mind any resort to it indicates a lack of good argument.

yes, when evidence is viewed in isolation. To pretend that A has ONLY presented those points is a strawman, particularly so when A has presented numerous exmaples of very strong evidence. you have stated that it is impossible to prove 1+1=2, therefore a judgement has to be made on a cumulative argument based on the weight of evidence. you can't do that viewing evidence in isolation. A jury reviews all the evidence, it would be absurd to have a different jury review seperate pieces of evidence in isolation.

Which gets us back to where we started. Does the alternative story fit all the facts better than the official story? Or does it explain one perceived anomaly at the expense of bringing in a lot of new problems with the rest of the facts?

[Stundie]

So providing a link with a lot of facts is "fire" and justifies a potty-mouthed return? Looks more like desperate resort to insult due to inability to counter said facts.

You didn't provide a link with lots of facts, you posted a pseudo skeptical bible. lol

If the website is so hot at this debunking malarkey, then maybe you could point out the evidence in the website which refutes Dick Cheney's own claim about him being in the PEOC when they hear of the Pentagon attack? lol

[Stundie]

Two points:

First, what are these facts D to L that conflict with the official explantion to the extent that they disprove it completely and make an "inside job" the only possible explanation?

No point in discussing these with you until we have established what the official story is or the truth?

So do you believe that Dick Cheney arrived at the PEOC at 9:58, perhaps 10:00 as the commission suggests and what evidence do you have to support it.

Which of them is the "smoking gun" rather than a minor error?

Sorry matey, but you can't automatically go around putting everything down to an error because you are making the claim it is an error, therefore the burden of proof would be on you to prove it was just an error.

I've asked you this before and I'm still waiting for an answer.

And I'm still waiting for you to explain why Cheney didn't arrive at the PEOC before the Pentagon attack and why Mineta didn't over hear Cheney talking about AA77, because all I have heard so far is you claim that he is mistaken without a shrapnel of evidence other than alluring to another conversation which although similar, is clearly a different conversation.

This doesn't prove that Mineta over heard Cheney talking to an aide about UA93 when he clearly states that he knew nothing about UA93 until after it had crashed.

So where's your evidence? Or is it a case of you arguing what you personally want to believe because it's more comfortable?? lol

Second, the trouble with your wildly differing versions of the conspiracy scenario is that one may fit perceived anomaly D, but miss E to L, the next fits E, but misses D and F to L, etc.

My wildly differing versions of the conspiracy scenario?? lol

I was not arguing that my version of the conspiracy was wildly differing, I was pointing out that people are individuals and therefore have many different theories.

If I am having to explain this again to you, you clearly didn't get what I said earlier and more importantly have a poor ability to retain information.

If you think all these are important, you have to have a theory that includes them all.

Oh don't you worry about what my theories are, concentrate on yours.

If you don't think some of them need to be considered, which of the common ones do you dismiss?

I don't dismiss evidence unless their is overwhelming evidence which shows evidence is wrong and even then I don't dismiss it, it's just means that one theory is much more possible than the other.

[Space Commander Travis]

profanity is a valid response to unsound logic

Is it really? Good heavens. So in that case, a perfectly valid reponse to a good 80% of topics in this section would be "what a load of absolutely ***** ********!!!", then. I'll have to bear it in mind, it'd save an awful lot of time.

[Little Fish]

Is it really? Good heavens. So in that case, a perfectly valid reponse to a good 80% of topics in this section would be "what a load of absolutely ***** ********!!!", then. I'll have to bear it in mind, it'd save an awful lot of time.

that is precisely what I didn't say.