Conspiracy Theories

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I'm currently watching the rather swell rebuttal movie "S***w Loose Change" on Google Video. Essentially, it's everyone's beloved 9/11 movie with amusing-but-perhaps-unneccessarily-crass subtitles refuting and questioning the deluded claims as it moves along. It also adds some interviews, photos, etc. for further debunking. Despite receiving multiple bad ratings by the conspiracy nuts, it's a good watch regardless of where you stand, and it raises, as it moves along, some points about conspiracy theories in general.

 

For example, it points out the movie insists on showing footage from the attacks when it's not neccessary to do so (as I've brought up before in the FOX News thread, this is, to traumatized victims, a very disrespectful-while-sadly-common method of dramatization because seeing the footage or pictures of the catastrophe, not to mention small things such as a certain smell, sound, mood or feeling, "brings it all back". Very little therapeutic indeed). While it might be irrelevant (most people don't think about old footage as damaging, to put it that way), it might also suggest that conspiracy theorists are taking these things as serious as they should, despite their claims of "having dedicated their work to the lives lost", or other heart-warming statements.

 

Furthermore, it brings up claims about how the same nutties have a strange tendency to spew T-shirts, books, Web Site Subscription fees, and the likes to "spread the word" or "cover the costs of spreading the truth". It's akin to how running a preaching Web site can be a very profitable venture. Finding and spreading "the truth" can make you rich.

 

Of course, T-shirt distribution itself isn't exactly proof of a scam. Our buddies in the Red Cross have been doing it for a while without me raising an eyebrow. But when your conspiracy theory has been debunked an eternity ago by a landslide of evidence and you still push it, while at the same time making money off of it, would it be unreasonable of me to believe you're "truth-seeking" for profit more than for putting the guilty behind bars?

 

We all (should) know that Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code was nothing more than a scam. I'm not saying that the Loose Change-people are, but I'm not saying they aren't, either. It's quite possible they're narrow-minded enough to still believe what they're saying spewing. Sorry, bit of a typo there:o.

 

So, conspiracy theories. From J. K. Rowling not being the one who wrote Harry Potter to the aliens in Area 51 plotting 9/11. Your opinions?

 

PS: Gawd, the grammar of that guy debunking Loose Change is downright awful.

[edlib]

Conspiracy theories have been a hobby of mine for a while now.

 

The signs of a classic C.T. are that they make things needlessly complicated; that the mechanics of the C.T. are complex to such a degree that the original explanations are far simpler than that of the conspiracy.

 

They also tend to fly in the face of just about everything we know about human nature.

 

They also rely on such overwhelmingly (and probably impossibly) powerful and tightly controlled organizations and/ or bureaucracies that if they really exist, it would be far too late for any of to do anything about it anyway. But since we all know that level of bureaucracy is impossible to sustain once it gets that big due to infighting, corruption, and incompetence (getting back to human nature,) it makes the whole theory fall apart anyway.

 

But they're fun to read and think about, if just to get a brief glimpse in the mind of a paranoiac.

 

Are there some who crassly conceive and publish C.T.s for profit, by feeding the minds of those already inclined to those types of ideas already? No doubt. Similar to the way people prey on those spiritually inclined.

[Nancy Allen``]

I got this from General Leang on Command & Conquer New Zealand. If September 11 was orchastrated by the government why did it have the Pentagon and World Trade Centre attacked? Why not Mount Rushmore or Capitol Hill, or the Washington Monuement? If such an attack called for many deaths why not the World Series where there would have been many times more deaths? Why hurt America the way the terrorist attacks had with the choice of targets?

[Dagobahn Eagle]

But then again, why didn't the terrorists target the World Cup? That argument works both ways, unfortunately.

 

But of course 9/11 was orchestraed by ibn Ladin. Loose Change makes an attempt to disprove this that is, when you look closely at it, very half-hearted. It's a movie that's very convincing on the surface, but breaks apart when you look at it with an educated mind. For example:

1. The people quoted are not experts in the field they're discussing, or, for that matter, experts in any field in the first place.
   
2. Many of the "facts" the directors use to back up their theories have already been refuted (such as the "no wreckage on the Pentagon lawn"-argument).
   
3. Lots of statements and quotes are very vague and in many cases the directors ignore factors that could be considered. For example, one of the people who are quoted because they saw something else than an AA airliner hit the Pentagon was several miles away when he saw the plane.
   
4. The makers of the movie make use of analogies that simply do not work ("a 'small' B-25 didn't tear down the Empire State Building, so a huge jumbo-jet shouldn't tear down the WTC!").
   
5. They makes use of strawmen (saying, for example, that the official statement is a lie because the WTC support system can't have been destroyed by fire. The official statement was that the airliner smashing into the building weakened the steel support beams, not that the fire did).

 

And let's not get into how 99,99% of their arguments have been refuted.

[TK-8252]

I always laugh at the lunatics who claim that 9/11 was an inside job. Gimme a break. Bush can't even keep his spy programs secret without them being leaked to the New York Times, and his cronies can't blow the cover of a CIA agent without being exposed.

 

This has got to be one of the most secretive, and also incompetent, gang that can't shoot straight in U.S. history.

[Nancy Allen``]

I'm sure the likes of Michael Moore would hate to hear that. Any type of political statement America could have made by orchastrating such an attack could have been accomplished without crippling themselves financially and militarily as the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon ran the real risk of doing. Besides which, if Iraq was the reason for it all like some claim why bomb Afghanistan?

[Dagobahn Eagle]

This one's even better: "Riverbend" is not real! (read 'Sherry "Sherry"'s review)

 

That's right, it's an "obvious lie"! 'Riverbend' is "some Democrat holed up in Baghdad writing this thing and publishing anti-American, anti-War propaganda"!

 

This is just too amazing, and an example of how certain fundamental believers will turn down any evidence brought forth against them. Oh, did this guy/girl write/film/sing/paint/draw something damaging to my hero(es)? Better convince myself and everyone the product's a life-filled scam!

 

Looking away from the implications, though, it's just hilarious:rofl:.

 

Heh heh, only 6 of 79 people found his/her "review" helpful:D!

[Nancy Allen``]

And people do. We do it every day. We turn a blind eye to the American heroes 'liberating' Iraq, to the Insurgents who are in reality the minutemen fighting against the invaders, to Palestinion suicide bombers, oh the kids killing themselves and as many Jews as they can only want their land back, to the Israelis, they're God's people they can do what they like, to Lebanon, them firing all the rockets on civillians is an act of self defense. See what I'm getting at? If it damages our cause, our beliefs, most of us will do anything in our power to prove we are right. That's much the stance that takes place in the Middle East and around the world, except they resort to war believing that this will prove that they are right.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Pretty much. Labelling is a very powerful weapon, and we use it whenever we can, often without even knowing it.

 

For example, why do we call the Norwegians who blew up bridges in Nazi-occpied Norway "partisans" or "resistance fighters", when we call the Iraqis who blow up bridges in US-occupied Iraq "terrorists"? Apparently it's your politics, not your actions, that determine whether or not you've committed an act of terrorism.

[Nancy Allen``]

It also boils down to who you do it against. Who can deny that the Nazis were the second greatest evil the world has ever seen? Then compare civillians being attacked by people such as Iraqi Insurgents, Palestine and Israel. There you see the clear diffirence.

[TK-8252]

It also boils down to who you do it against. Who can deny that the Nazis were the second greatest evil the world has ever seen? Then compare civillians being attacked by people such as Iraqi Insurgents, Palestine and Israel. There you see the clear diffirence.

 

Well, when you consider all of the horrible crusaders and brutal warriors that have existed in Egypt, China, Europe, etc. throughout history, the Nazis didn't make it quite to the second place spot. I would say though that they're the second greatest evil that we've seen in recent history, second only to the Communists.

[Nancy Allen``]

I was thinking Bush as the greatest, depending on who you ask. I am not kidding you when I say people have voted to assassinate Bush. That's crazy, but he is hated that much and compared to Hitler and Palpatine.

[The Source]

Here is one for you, this is how my night went on August 9, 2006-August 10, 2006.

 

Between the hours of: 6:00pm to 10:00pm:

1. Brian William (NBC News) reported that Leberman (Former Democrat Senator From Cuneticuit) looses his race, for he supported the war on Iraq.

 

2. Fox, NBC, and ABC ran an anylasis as to what Leberman's loss means to both the Democrats and Republicans who supported the war on Iraq. They mentioned that this was an indication that people want change.

 

Several Democrats spoke up as well. Hillary Clinton, etc...

 

Between the hours of 3:30am to 4:00am:

1. Terrorists were stopped in Britain. 20 Terrorists.

 

Around 12:00ish today:

1. President Bush says this is why we are still at war.

 

Comments?

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Of course Bush&Co. capitalizes on this for all it's worth. But it doesn't change the fact that Iraq's regime had nothing to do with 9/11. FOX "News" might say it did, but it did not.

[The Source]

Every Sunday, I turn on 'Fox News' and 'Meet the Press'.

[Windu Chi]

Well, when you consider all of the horrible crusaders and brutal warriors that have existed in Egypt, China, Europe, etc. throughout history, the Nazis didn't make it quite to the second place spot. I would say though that they're the second greatest evil that we've seen in recent history, second only to the Communists.

 

I strongly disagree with that statement the Nazis have took first place as the most evil organization in human history.

 

Those f**kers kill millions of people and most them bastards got away with it, because the rest of of the suppose civilized world did'nt give a damn.

 

I am also tired of people who don't realize this fact.

 

[The Source]

I strongly disagree with that statement the Nazis have took first place as the most evil organization in human history.

 

Those f**kers kill millions of people and most them basters got away with it, because the rest of of the suppose civilized world did'nt give a damn.

 

I am also tired of people who don't realize this fact.

 

Agreed. I do believe they own the #1 spot.

 

I think he is trying to grab at other historical events. Durring the Christain Crusades, the main purpose was to wipe out anyone who was not Christian. They also slaughtered hundreds, but it still doesn't measure up to what happend durring World War II.

[Nancy Allen``]

'Bush is the greatest evil the world has ever faced and anyone who disagrees is a Nazi' seems to be the popular belief.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I thought I'd post this here, it's a conspiracy theory after all (and it's really driving me mad): The leftist islamic-owned media's cover-up of islamic terrorism on US Soil!

 

OK, so old Mel Gibson gets drunk and shoutrs some anti-Jewish sentiments. The news are on his back for an eternity about it.

 

Meanwhile, a disgruntled Muslim walks into a Jewish store and shoots the shopkeeper out of Anti-Semittic sentiments. The media covers it, but not nearly as much as they cover Mel Gibson's drunken tirade.

 

What's this mean? Well, to the neo-conservatives, it somehow seems to mean that the evil leftist media is an affiliate of islamic terrorism (to understand this fully you have to realize that in neo-con NewSpeak, the word "hate-crime" (among other words) has been replaced with "terrorism" for political reasons) and that the said media thus deliberately covered up the "terrorist act on US soil" while at the same time making a huge spectacle out of Gibson's assault on Judaism. How they reached this conclusion, I don't know, but then again, I'm not a neo-con. They do think in a different way than us, after all.

 

But did it occcur to anyone else than me that maybe Mel Gibson is getting more attention simply because he is a celebrity?! They can't fart without the media shooting them down for weeks! And if the media was to cover every single one of the 11 000 annual gun homicide in the US to the same extent as they cover celebrities, they'd have no time to cover anything else (that, and the neo-cons would jump at them for giving too much air-time to how guns kill people kill each others with guns).

 

Who needs the Rosswell UFO:rolleyes:?

[TK-8252]

So much for the media being controlled by Jews.

[Nancy Allen``]

Say, just on the London terrorist attacks being foiled: On September 11 people said they should have acted on the information they had. So now the athorities have done so and they are attacked for acting on the information they had. The police can't ****ing well win, if they had waited and the planes were blown up they would have been crucified for not acting.

[TK-8252]

So now the athorities have done so and they are attacked for acting on the information they had.

 

Huh... I haven't heard people attacking the police for their actions on this. Who's doing that?

[Tyrion]

Yeah, most people are attacking the new restrictions on airline travel, not that the police had acted on their information.

[Nancy Allen``]

Apparently charges cannot be laid on the suspects because there was a lack of evidence, so people are saying that they should have waited, they should have beenn allowed the terrorists to have a dry run first, all that sort of thing. I can find reports of it I think.

[Nancy Allen``]

Speaking of which in today's paper there was a report that the US worked with Israel on an attack on Hezbollah long before the kidnappings, so they could easier target Iran. Conspirasists: START YOUR ENGINES!!!