About the idea that conspiracies are all nonsense?

[FaithIsFilth]

Actually, it's idiotic.

How so? It worked out brilliantly, like I said. People were so blinded with hate and fear of Muslims that they were going to support going into any country Bush wanted to go into. All he had to do was make up some crap about WMDs and the people were on board. The American government had it's people in a state of fear, so they could do whatever they wanted. That's another thing I don't quite understand... people have no problem admitting that Bush lied about WMDs to get into Iraq, but then they turn around and say there's no way he lied to get into Afghanistan as well to get this whole "War on Terrorism" started. Apparently it's ridiculous to think that Bush would have lied to get the War on Terrorism started, yet these same people admit that he lied to get other wars started. Why is it then so out there to think that he might have lied to get the Afghanistan war started?

[josephpalazzo]

Actually, it's idiotic.

Yep, even if the twin towers had not been attacked, the Iraqi war would have happened anyway. It was in the cards the moment that Bush was elected with Cheney, Rumsfeld and the neo-cons in charge of the agenda. 9/11 provided the excuse to get the American people on board.

[Gerard]

I don't buy into any conspiracy "theories" as that word is used in the layman's sense of "wild-ass idea".  I buy into it when it becomes conspiracy fact, backed by documentation and real evidence.

Which is exactly the point. Speculation built on political distrust is not a valid argument for any suggested scenario in itself. And political distrust in combination with self inflicted ideological and social isolation is rampant in the mothercountry of conspiracy theories (and also increasingly in other countries) causing distressing dumbing down of the public at large. Where 9-11 is concerned, yes, going to war with Iraq was a bad idea. A really bad idea. Which only shows that it was probably conjured up as a result of the 9-11 event and not the other way around. Conspiracies happen at times, but most so called conspiracy theories are bunk.

Gerard

[FaithIsFilth]

Yep, even if the twin towers had not been attacked, the Iraqi war would have happened anyway. It was in the cards the moment that Bush was elected with Cheney, Rumsfeld and the neo-cons in charge of the agenda. 9/11 provided the excuse to get the American people on board.

The US government had a hard enough time keeping support for the Iraq war up, even with the 3000 dead Americans on 9/11. Imagine how much quicker the people would have started protesting the war in Iraq without 9/11 causing them to fear/ hate Muslims. The people wouldn't have supported the war in the first place. The neo-cons knew that they needed their own Pearl Harbor. The neo-cons said that absent a new Pearl Harbor, the process of transformation would be painfully slow. They admitted it themselves, so why do you now deny it? They said themselves that they couldn't achieve what they wanted without a new Pearl Harbor. Do you really believe they would have been able to achieve their goals without 9/11? That's crazy. Even the neo-cons weren't crazy enough to believe something like that. Come on now.

And how do you rip up the Constitution/ Bill of Rights by bringing in the Patriot Act without 9/11? How? You don't. You need 9/11 to get people on board with having their rights taken. They want the people to be on board with having their own rights taken if possible, and they have achieved that with a lot of people happy to give up their rights.

[Gerard]

The US government had a hard enough time keeping support for the Iraq war up, even with the 3000 dead Americans on 9/11. Imagine how much quicker the people would have started protesting the war in Iraq without 9/11 causing them to fear/ hate Muslims. The people wouldn't have supported the war in the first place. The neo-cons knew that they needed their own Pearl Harbor. The neo-cons said that absent a new Pearl Harbor, the process of transformation would be painfully slow. They admitted it themselves, so why do you now deny it? They said themselves that they couldn't achieve what they wanted without a new Pearl Harbor. Do you really believe they would have been able to achieve their goals without 9/11? That's crazy. Even the neo-cons weren't crazy enough to believe something like that. Come on now.

And how do you rip up the Constitution/ Bill of Rights by bringing in the Patriot Act without 9/11? How? You don't. You need 9/11 to get people on board with having their rights taken. They want the people to be on board with having their own rights taken if possible, and they have achieved that with a lot of people happy to give up their rights.

Which is emphatically not a valid argument supporting the veracity of a conspiracy theory concerning 9-11. Just a politically motivated rationalization.... I'm sorry to say.

Gerard

[josephpalazzo]

The US government had a hard enough time keeping support for the Iraq war up, even with the 3000 dead Americans on 9/11. Imagine how much quicker the people would have started protesting the war in Iraq without 9/11 causing them to fear/ hate Muslims. The people wouldn't have supported the war in the first place. The neo-cons knew that they needed their own Pearl Harbor. The neo-cons said that absent a new Pearl Harbor, the process of transformation would be painfully slow. They admitted it themselves, so why do you now deny it? They said themselves that they couldn't achieve what they wanted without a new Pearl Harbor. Do you really believe they would have been able to achieve their goals without 9/11? That's crazy. Even the neo-cons weren't crazy enough to believe something like that. Come on now.

And how do you rip up the Constitution/ Bill of Rights by bringing in the Patriot Act without 9/11? How? You don't. You need 9/11 to get people on board with having their rights taken. They want the people to be on board with having their own rights taken if possible, and they have achieved that with a lot of people happy to give up their rights.

I believe you don't understand the difference between cause and effect, so I won't waste any more of my time answering your post. 

[Hydra009]

Which is exactly the point. Speculation built on political distrust is not a valid argument for any suggested scenario in itself. And political distrust in combination with self inflicted ideological and social isolation is rampant in the mothercountry of conspiracy theories (and also increasingly in other countries) causing distressing dumbing down of the public at large.

This plus a thousand!

Conspiracy theories are an exceptionally lazy, moronic, and untrustworthy way of making sense of events.  Pinning something horrific on some untrusted boogeyman simply because it vibes with one's way of viewing the world and not because of actual data leading to a conclusion is the domain of cranks and fools, not skeptics.

Where 9-11 is concerned, yes, going to war with Iraq was a bad idea. A really bad idea. Which only shows that it was probably conjured up as a result of the 9-11 event and not the other way around.

The W Bush administration planned the Iraq War before 9/11.  That event just gave the administration the opportunity to go through with it with a lot less fuss.

[Gerard]

This plus a thousand!

Conspiracy theories are an exceptionally lazy, moronic, and untrustworthy way of making sense of events.  Pinning something horrific on some untrusted boogeyman simply because it vibes with one's way of viewing the world and not because on actual data leading to a conclusion is the domain of cranks and fools, not skeptics.
The W Bush administration planned the Iraq War before 9/11.  That event just gave the administration the opportunity to go through with it with a lot less fuss.

Interesting link there. I always had the impression that, pre 9-11, Bush was holding back because he obviously didn't win a popular mandate, although he did become President, and was therefore more keen on winning some domestic points. 9-11 all changed that (and not for the better).

Gerard

[Gerard]

It's a worrying thing how conspiracy theories become ever more popular. I say blame the internet.... No... not really, but blame political polarization and the fact that people somehow feel entitled not to be confronted with opinions that are not to their liking. Which deprives them of "food for thought", which you need to keep an open mind that is not so open that your brain falls out! So yes. The internet is partly to blame. And the polarization within other media that don't behave like professional news organizations anymore but as political hacks that are only interested in viewing numbers and commercials (sorry about the rant)... Anyhow, the most popular conspiracy theories of the last decennium can, in my opinion, mostly not stand up to informed inductive scrutiny. 9-11, moon hoax, birth hoax (Obama), JFK assassination, Ted Cruz is a Canadian (the Trump hoax as I call it), Hidden History, Forbidden archeology, Planet X and all  the Zecharia Sitchin stuff about Annunaki, and generally the whole UFO experience Roswell..... all substandard BULL!

Gerard

[Hydra009]

Don't forget Elvis, HIV/AIDS deliberately spread by some government or made up altogether, and autism-causing vaccines.  :P

A few of the reasons for the ascendancy of denialism that I've noticed:

1) the truth is psychologically uncomfortable.  Chalking it up to some group that you already dislike and "know" is responsible gives people a sense of control.  9/11 is a big contender there, as is global warming denial.
2) distrust of official sources (the government/media/scientist is lying!  I just know it!)
3) anti-intellectualism ("my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - the false equivalency between expert knowledge and non-expert hunches)

[Baruch]

Gerard ... when I want to consume bull, I consume only the good stuff ;-)

[Johan]

Ok going use multiple quotes because you're covering a lot of ground here. Sorry for that, just the best way to do it I think.

Shitty title.. I used that because I just went blank with a title..

Anyways.. I got to thinking about the notion that government or people within government or even private citizens would never be willing to kill citizens for profit or other reasons.. Take 911 as an example..
The argument is that there's either no motivation or too much standing in the way,  but consider this.

First off, you're right that this argument is bogus. But you're wrong about a lot of the other stuff so I'll get into that a bit and then I'll come back to this if I can remember to do so.

We have a nation of people willing to arm themselves to the teeth out of fear someone might break into our homes to swipe our lawn mower  or whatever.  Oh! Someone will knock you over the head for 20 bucks so I need to be armed..
The very same person might also tell you that nobody in government, etc. would be willing to kill say..3000 people for money or power..
I don't see the logic. 

Ok first off, a gross misconception or two. I now know quite a few people who do indeed arm themselves to the teeth and aren't the least bit ashamed of that fact. I do not know one single solitary person, armed or otherwise, who loses a moments rest over the thought of someone swiping their lawn mower or $20 or $20,000 much less has any kind of willingness or desire to kill over such trivial things. I know you probably won't believe what I've just said, but I'm here to tell you believe it because it's absolutely true. If the criminal in question makes if obvious that they only intend to steal stuff and have no intent to harm anyone, every single gun owner I personally know will let them take the stuff and keep their weapon holstered. I am by no means saying every person will do that. I am only saying that everyone I know would do it and therefore my assumption is most (but probably not all) gun owners would do it.

The people I know who arm themselves for protection do so because they fear bodily harm and that is all. Their stuff is insured. So stealing it just means they get to shopping with someone else paying the tab which is something just about everyone loves to do. Their fear is a criminal who is intent on doing physical harm to them and that is all. Not one person I know enjoys the thought that they could potentially put someone in their grave. But they all are willing to pick themselves and their loved ones as the unharmed survivors of such a scenario over the alternative of a memorial service in their honor.

So in short yeah, you're a little wrong about your assumptions here. Next.

If someone is willing to kill you over 20 bucks just imagine the motivation to kill for a few million or more.. maybe a few billion..  It's not as if street thugs have the monopoly on greed and violence.

Again, you're absolutely right. A few million dollars is definitely more than enough motivation for tons of people to willfully kill any number of strangers and even non-strangers. People are greedy and ruthless. No doubt about it. And that right there is the place where the wheels come off the tracks for pretty much all conspiracy theories. Because pretty much all of them require a large number of individuals (i.e. more than say 4) to have knowledge of what is going on AND keep their mouths shut tight about it. That is just never going to happen because as we've just established, people are just far too greedy and far too ruthless. Once the scheme is large enough that it requires more than about 4 people to have knowledge of its existence, you have to expect that someone will be willing to take the money offered to any who will talk.

Case in point: TWA flight 800. There are MANY who believe that plane was brought down by a shoulder fired rocket or some such which was launched by some faction of our own military or government. Lots of people genuinely believe this. But here is what that conspiracy requires. The wreckage resulting from that accident was investigated by teams from both the FBI and the NTSB. Large teams of scientists and engineers and experts. Most of these folks hold down salaries south of $100k per year and most will be lucky if they can afford to retire in one of those god-forsaken Florida gated golf cart communities (no offence intended to those who desire or enjoy that lifestyle). So if there were any plausible evidence that a rocket of any sort was involved in the accident scenario, most of the experts who had their hands on the wreckage would know it. And the law of averages alone says at least one of them would be willing to pad their retirement with the large amounts of easy money that would come their way by speaking up about whatever they were inevitably required to keep quiet about.

If only two individuals had access to the wreckage? If only two individuals had access to the results of all the testing? Then yes, it would be completely plausible that a cover-up could take place. But far more people had access to everything and tons of them will never retire wealthy no matter what they do. So tons of people would have more than enough incentive to talk if there were anything to talk about.

I've had this argument before about people in power who supposedly wouldn't kill fellow citizens for profit. Put enough money on the table and a good enough plan to get away with it and there is motivation enough..

Again, true. Again, the good enough plan part is where the wheels fall off and fall off hard. Get more than 4 individuals involved (as all conspiracy theories do) and you simply cannot hope to keep everyone quiet. No way no how.

[Atheon]

I don't buy into any conspiracy theories in which the proponents use the word "sheeple".

[Gawdzilla Sama]

How so? It worked out brilliantly, like I said. People were so blinded with hate and fear of Muslims that they were going to support going into any country Bush wanted to go into. All he had to do was make up some crap about WMDs and the people were on board. The American government had it's people in a state of fear, so they could do whatever they wanted. That's another thing I don't quite understand... people have no problem admitting that Bush lied about WMDs to get into Iraq, but then they turn around and say there's no way he lied to get into Afghanistan as well to get this whole "War on Terrorism" started. Apparently it's ridiculous to think that Bush would have lied to get the War on Terrorism started, yet these same people admit that he lied to get other wars started. Why is it then so out there to think that he might have lied to get the Afghanistan war started?

If you want to start a religious war you start by attacking religion. Ten light airplanes loaded with explosives fly into ten major churches in the US. National Cathedral, Crystal Cathedral, etc., are destroyed. Religious fervor sweeps the nation. And you don't have to hijack large airliners, you buy the light planes outright. Given that they weren't sure the Twin Towers would actually go down or that the hijackings would actually work the IOTL attacks were idiotic.

[Baruch]

"and you simply cannot hope to keep everyone quiet. No way no how." ... this is why the 9/11 guys had giggle fits, and one of them told President Shrub what they were doing before 9/11 ... right?  People only have to be quiet until after the act.  After that dead men tell no tales.  This is why we had Osama confess to everything after we captured him alive ... right?