|
Can anyone explain why 9/11 truthers, who I seem to be now encountering literally everywhere I go, from Thailand to my workplace, choose to believe probably the least plausible of all 9/11 conspiracy theories? Example: There was no hijackers. Ok. What about the security tapes showing hijackers? How else did the planes go down? If missiles shot the planes down, why were planes flying toward buildings? Example: The towers were detonated. But why is there footage of the towers being hit by airplanes? A giant jet-fuel bomb can indeed destroy the structural integrity of a building, so why not? Example: The planes were computer generated on TV -- Then why did credible people, like firefighters, see airplanes hit the towers? The thing that I just can't figure out is, among all conspiracy theories related to 9/11, why pick out the most god-awfully absurd? If you're going to believe there was a conspiracy, OK. I'll listen to it. I think it's highly unlikely, but you could make a case that the Bush administration were aware of the attacks before they happened, yet deliberately did nothing to stop it. Or, you could even try to make a case that a shadow organization in the government conspired with the terrorists to implement the attacks, and use it as a false-flag to go oil-crazy in the Middle East. These accusations are plausible (not believable by me, but plausible to debate about) because it's not like the conspiracy theorist is trying to say that thousands of people on the ground were hallucinating or paid off by the illuminati cabal, or that nobody died on the airplanes (which can be refuted by asking even one person, like me, who knew of someone who was killed on one of the planes). The conspiracy could simply end with the idea that the government allowed something horrible to happen to push its own agenda. This is an atrocious enough sin if it were true, so isn't that bad enough? Well, no, it's not enough apparently. So when I encounter truthers, which is becoming increasingly common, I enter the conversation optimistically that it will be a smart discussion, sort-of like talking about the JFK assassination, which conspiracy theorists can lay out a pretty solid case about. Instead, again and again, the truthers go into the absolute absurd... Computer generated airplanes, decoy airplanes, witnesses on the ground who were paid off, ETC. So my question is, why is this the mainstream belief among the conspiracy crowd? Isn't it much easier just to say the government paid off the hijackers or conspired with Bin Laden? Why does it have to go into extreme assertions? To finish my rant, today is September the 11th and my Facebook wall is filled with people I previously thought were sensible new friends who are posting image macros asserting all of this nutty stuff, and I feel really depressed about it.
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 23:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 11:36 |
|
|
The idiot truthers are duped by CIA plants spreading disinformation. It is well known that the Illuminati spreads dumb conspiracy theories to discredit real ones. It was probably Mossad or Aliens or something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 00:00
|
|
|
I read once that people latch on to conspiracy theories like NWO KILLED JFK  and HOLOGRAPHIC PLANES ON 9/11  because the alternatives-that some nut with a rifle can kill the President or that a bunch of guys with box cutters can destroy the WTC and kill thousands of people-are really inducive to paranoia. I think that accurately explains the appeal of 9/11 and other conspiracy theories.(Also, no Chile 1973 memorial thread? Shame on you, D&D.  )
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 00:02
|
|
|
This one guy on my Facebook chooses to believe the (relatively) most sane of the various conspiracies, that it was a false flag operation by Bush, and I get to hear about it every 9/11; truly, 9/11 is the gift that keeps on giving.  e:D&D isn't the place for Chilean coup gimmick threads; that's the GBS tradition. So for content, I'll just baselessly posit that it's a cocktail of biases, not the least of which are confirmation bias and hostile attribution bias, which generate your run-of-the-mill 9/11 Truther. Protagorean fucked around with this message at 00:09 on Sep 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 00:03
|
|
|
The worst part is explaining that I know people died in the airplanes, and being called "sheeple" Wake up, sheeple....
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 00:05
|
|
|
More down-to-earth, plausible conspiracies leave open the possibility of action. The majority of conspiracy theories are created to comfort the people believing them. That is, they suspect the US government of evil actions with regards to September 11th, or water fluoridation, or disaster relief. This is an intolerable state of affairs, but by making the evil grandiose and seemingly omnipotent, they are relieved of responsibility for stopping it, which is paradoxically comforting.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 00:07
|
|
|
Honestly, the conspiracy theories aren't even really coherent. I've had a few long talks with people I used to talk to regular (one went crazy around the election and blocked half his friends list on facebook, including me) and when you get deep enough, they eventually get mad and just start sputtering nonsense and non-sequitors, usually based on things they think are fact that are fundamentally wrong. A lot of people took Loose Change stuff to heart without really thinking too hard about it. A lot of it is just libertarians who believe that everything the government does is wrong, 9/11 was wrong, therefore the government did it. The logic is something they work out afterwards. There are very few thoughtful conspiracy theorists relating to 9/11, because the ones who thought about it stopped being conspiracy theorists. The left overs are a bunch of waterheads and libertarian dipshits. And they're not dipshits because they're libertarians, they are the dumbest libertarians. These are the people who want an 80 year old man to run for president in 2016, because he has "new" ideas.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 00:07
|
|
|
Some truthers couldn't fit the event, or the reaction to it, into their head. It's a traumatic event and they've blocked it out. Others think they live in a reasonable world where people act reasonably. Still others buy into the myth of American supremacy. Some truther arguments are inherently racist. Like the Ancient Alien theorists, they don't think that those people could have done it on their own. Others listen to Loose Change. As for the holograms and poo poo? They don't understand that we live in a world of real conspiracies, so they look for fake ones instead. A bad portion of them are just mentally ill or letting talk radio do their thinking for them, and some just watch too much tv. As for Kennedy, well, the utter chaos surrounding it didn't help anything. Did the cops hang the stripper? Was LHO a CIA informant? What the gently caress is Discordianism and why are they talking to the Bavarian Illuminati?! WHO IS RAVENHEARST?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 00:12
|
|
|
cucka posted:Honestly, the conspiracy theories aren't even really coherent. I've had a few long talks with people I used to talk to regular (one went crazy around the election and blocked half his friends list on facebook, including me) and when you get deep enough, they eventually get mad and just start sputtering nonsense and non-sequitors, usually based on things they think are fact that are fundamentally wrong. A lot of people took Loose Change stuff to heart without really thinking too hard about it. A lot of it is just libertarians who believe that everything the government does is wrong, 9/11 was wrong, therefore the government did it. The logic is something they work out afterwards. What sucks is let's say hypothetically there was a conspiracy. False flag operations are not outside the spectrum of a corrupt government, ie Operation Northwoods. What if Rumsfeld and friends were briefed about 9/11, but did nothing to stop it because they needed a reason to attack Iraq? Well anyway, if something like that really did occur, it would NEVER EVER be revealed or exposed because the conspiracy theorists themselves are the ones claiming in the same breath that the airplanes were computer generated so any assessment of 9/11 will forever be lumped in with the nutbags. I don't think there was a conspiracy because Bush was too inept to even do something diabolical, but just hypothetically speaking.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 00:15
|
|
|
Gen. Ripper posted:I read once that people latch on to conspiracy theories like NWO KILLED JFK That's pretty much it. Such a big thing happening, to these people's minds, cannot possibly have so simple an explanation. It means that their world is not as 'sturdy' as they would like it, and it has to be some sort of herculean effort. It can't be that this one guy with a rifle and some bullshit reason shot JFK, there has to be more, it can't be that simple, it can't be that cut and dry. There always has to be a conspiracy because their minds will start to add in details. Any coincidence becomes solid proof, anything that discredits their proof is 'planted' by the organization in question. It's almost religious in a way, because they will hold onto their faith that this is truly a conspiracy even as every shred of evidence, when examined, becomes nothing. Also there's the idea of personal fear. Which would you find scarier? That all the government's forces are so incompetent that they could not adequately detect and stop the worst terrorist attack this nation has ever seen, or that they were the perpetrators to begin with? Even if the leader is 'evil', in their mind, he's at least some sort of super genius that gets poo poo done, and can keep most of the people safe. The idea that the leaders are good, but utterly incompetent and incapable of protecting you, is terrifying. The people that you have put forth as your protectors, your guardians, and your fearless leaders hosed up, and the idea that they are fallible human beings is incomprehensible. So obviously our protectors, guardians, and fearless leaders were in on it. 
E-Tank fucked around with this message at 00:28 on Sep 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 00:26
|
|
|
The worst ones are the architects for truth or whoever who claim that the WTC towers were filled with thermite or some other explosives and there was a timed demolition coinciding with the towers being struck. Like the whole idea of that seems dumb because it would take hundreds if not thousands of contractors to be working on that and more than a decade later none of them talks or were all killed? I had to turn away a $10k gig once because a ENT wanted to produce a documentary about this subject, despite the fact that one already existed. Oh and also his ideas were crazy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 00:29
|
|
|
Rencall posted:What sucks is let's say hypothetically there was a conspiracy. False flag operations are not outside the spectrum of a corrupt government, ie Operation Northwoods. What if Rumsfeld and friends were briefed about 9/11, but did nothing to stop it because they needed a reason to attack Iraq? I suspect people that latch onto the conspiracy theories do so exactly because they feel they can "know" they are true. If you watch a video of 9/11 and feel that it must be a remote control plane, then you pride yourself on how smart you are. If you watch "Loose Change" you can think about all those dumb idiots that didn't realize that it was really a missile that hit the Pentagon. If you believe it was a thermite charge that took down WTC 7 you can feel contented in your sound knowledge of engineering versus the those other sheeple. Conspiracy theories of the kind you're talking about aren't verifiable in the same way and don't let you feel superior. You can suspect Bush allowed 9/11 to happen but you can't really feel content about how much smarter you are then anyone else. The JFK assassination works the same way. Oswald after all had contact with a ton of different groups including the CIA and KGB, yet theories rarely revolve around his motives. Instead most JFK assassination theories are about how smart the person explaining the theory is for "knowing" that Oswald could never have made those shots.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 00:31
|
|
|
It is because the truth is boring.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 00:44
|
|
|
Rencall posted:What sucks is let's say hypothetically there was a conspiracy. False flag operations are not outside the spectrum of a corrupt government, ie Operation Northwoods. What if Rumsfeld and friends were briefed about 9/11, but did nothing to stop it because they needed a reason to attack Iraq? It really is a shame about all the nutbags though. Those people obstruct oversight. Raskolnikov fucked around with this message at 05:10 on Sep 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 01:08
|
|
|
Raskolnikov posted:I wouldn't past Rumsfled and friends to turn a blind eye to all those reports that went unheeded that helped make 9/11 possible. Does this make me a truther? Nah, there is a clear difference between thinking negligence in the government led to 9/11 and thinking the government knew about and condoned the WTC attack
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 01:16
|
|
|
Barlow posted:I suspect people that latch onto the conspiracy theories do so exactly because they feel they can "know" they are true. If you watch a video of 9/11 and feel that it must be a remote control plane, then you pride yourself on how smart you are. If you watch "Loose Change" you can think about all those dumb idiots that didn't realize that it was really a missile that hit the Pentagon. If you believe it was a thermite charge that took down WTC 7 you can feel contented in your sound knowledge of engineering versus the those other sheeple. Yeah, this is a main point: Many who fall into conspiracist thinking do it out of arrogance and a desire to think they have superior knowledge to others. However, I have some sympathy for how these attitudes are created in many people because citizens are indeed regularly lied to by Governments/powerful multi-national bodies etc. that are not transparent or particularly accountable. The things that have been proven about the NSA's activities seem straight out of the most tinfoil rantings of a few years ago. The 'arrogant' response is a cry of frustration.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 01:24
|
|
|
There were a bunch of guys handing out fliers at the overpass 10 minute away from my house. I live in Victoria, BC, 3000 miles away from New York or DC. I don't know how the gently caress they think this stuff will gain any sort of traction here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 01:47
|
|
|
1st AD posted:The worst ones are the architects for truth or whoever who claim that the WTC towers were filled with thermite or some other explosives and there was a timed demolition coinciding with the towers being struck. What I never understood about the "controlled demolition" theory is if they were just going to blow up the towers with explosives, why bother with the planes? Or, if you're going to fly planes into the buildings, why bother with the explosives? Either of these events on their own would suffice as a massive terrorist attack worthy of retaliation. Gen. Ripper posted:I read once that people latch on to conspiracy theories like NWO KILLED JFK This is pretty much correct. It's the same reason some people were babbling about "crisis actors" playing the part of the dead and injured after the Sandy Hook massacre and the Boston marathon bombing. They simply can't accept that so few people have the capability to kill so many for seemingly no reason. It has to be an elaborate, stage-managed production meant to fool everyone except an enlightened few.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 02:11
|
|
|
Well of course the plane couldn't have taken down the building because jet fuel burns below the melting point of steel, so clearly it was taken down by thousands of thermite charges that were planted in secret in the busiest office building in the world. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 02:16
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:What I never understood about the "controlled demolition" theory is if they were just going to blow up the towers with explosives, why bother with the planes? Or, if you're going to fly planes into the buildings, why bother with the explosives? Either of these events on their own would suffice as a massive terrorist attack worthy of retaliation. Well something had to collapse and fall on WTC 7 which was the real target because of the alien autopsies, duh. Or it's possible conspiracy theorists and Occam's Razor don't exist in the same universe.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 02:17
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:What I never understood about the "controlled demolition" theory is if they were just going to blow up the towers with explosives, why bother with the planes? Or, if you're going to fly planes into the buildings, why bother with the explosives? Either of these events on their own would suffice as a massive terrorist attack worthy of retaliation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 03:07
|
|
|
The trump card that I often see getting pulled has to do with the third WTC tower going down. Is there a black and white answer for that?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 03:20
|
|
|
Miltank posted:The trump card that I often see getting pulled has to do with the third WTC tower going down. Is there a black and white answer for that? It was a piece of junk built on top of a giant Con Edison power substation. There was also fuel stored all over inside the building in part for Giuliani's doomsday bunker on the 23rd floor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 03:27
|
|
|
Miltank posted:The trump card that I often see getting pulled has to do with the third WTC tower going down. Is there a black and white answer for that? Wait a minute... How is Donald Trump involved in all this?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 03:37
|
|
|
reagan posted:It was a piece of junk built on top of a giant Con Edison power substation. There was also fuel stored all over inside the building in part for Giuliani's doomsday bunker on the 23rd floor. Someone in the GBS thread claimed there is a picture of the building with heavy damage. I'd love to see it if someone has it handy. But if Giuliani and a bunch of other paranoid agencies had offices there why wouldn't the building be wired? Obviously this isn't something they want to admit because 1) it feeds the crazies 2) No one will want to work in offices wired with explosives I also think United 93 might have been shot down and the resistance story is either an embellishment or fiction. There is a big post-modern component to conspiracy theories - you can create whatever personal truth you like. It doesn't change the basic fact that three planes hit major buildings and 3,000 people died. Maybe one day documents will be declassified and we'll learn more about WTC 7 and United 93 - but by then 
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 03:39
|
|
|
Miltank posted:The trump card that I often see getting pulled has to do with the third WTC tower going down. Is there a black and white answer for that? One of the towers toppled over as it collapsed (though truthers like to say they both fell "into their footprints") and tore a gash into the side of WTC 7. The damage and fire caused it to collapse much later in the day.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 03:39
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:I think the theory is that the planes weren't enough to down the towers, and that using explosives alone to down them would have required either more explosive or more sophisticated placement than could plausibly be disguised as a terrorist attack. Right. Which is stupid, because the planes didn't even have to bring down the towers. Two fully-fueled hijacked airliners slamming into the twin towers was plenty good enough of a terrorist attack in itself, whether the towers collapsed or not. It seems like conspiracy theorists don't grasp this though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 03:44
|
|
|
Gen. Ripper posted:I read once that people latch on to conspiracy theories like NWO KILLED JFK Conspiracy theories are basically equivalent to third-world shamanism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 04:23
|
|
|
Miltank posted:The trump card that I often see getting pulled has to do with the third WTC tower going down. Is there a black and white answer for that? Yeah http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI But it's not like it'd ever convince a truther
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 04:40
|
|
|
McDowell posted:I also think United 93 might have been shot down and the resistance story is either an embellishment or fiction. This and the idea that the government knew about the attacks before they happened ring true to me. I'm not saying that I believe that those conspiracy theories are true, but if any of them are I believe it's those two. The way they used Flight 93 in the media feels exactly the same as the way they used the "heroic rescue" of Jessica Lynch or the story of Pat Tillman. It fits perfectly in with the neo-conservative agenda. Then again, so does just being really, really short-sighted, brazen, and loving incompetent. So it was probably just that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 04:44
|
|
|
Strangely, one of the best explanations for conspiracy theorists of all stripes is mostly missing from this thread and it's one of the most obvious explanations. People want to seem smart. They want to be the ones who know what 'really' happened. If they 'know' there are aliens at Area 51 and the government is keeping it from the rest of society, guess what? Then they're smarter and more privileged than John Q. Public. They are in the know. Once a person latches on to an idea that they think makes them intellectually superior to the average person, and/or one that puts them into a select group of right-thinking 'intellectuals', it's going to be god drat hard to make them give up that belief, because then they'll have to admit that their great insight was wrong. edit to add: This is especially easy to do with 9/11 truther crap because understanding explosives, construction techniques, airplanes, social dynamics, and all the other complicated things that go into such a scenario are 'hard' to understand, so manipulating facts to suit a belief that holographic airplanes triggered plastic explosives in the buildings is easy to mishmash to fit whatever view you have because they 'know' so much more about whatever facts could be distorted than your average layman does. It helps lend credence to both the theory and their own view that they have special knowledge that precludes rational thought. Big Beef City fucked around with this message at 04:57 on Sep 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 04:53
|
|
|
Does someone have the old Building 7 thread tag? This thread needs it. I think part of the appeal of conspiracy theories is that they can be so easily and lazily defended (and by "defended" I mean "deterring the people who disagree" and not "successfully using facts and evidence to support a point") that they catch on for certain people. So when you link to a bunch of studies/debunkings of 9/11 thermite charges or whatever, they usually say "well, those guys are being paid with OUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS to deny the TRUTH!!!" or the classic "you sheeple need to wake up!" The burden of proof just never sticks to people that believe these sorts of things. Mahuum Aqoha fucked around with this message at 05:08 on Sep 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 05:05
|
|
|
Truthers always kind of fascinated me, because you'd think if your conspiracy theory can be thoroughly debunked by a loving Cracked article you'd just kind of pack it in and move onto lizard people or something instead.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 05:25
|
|
|
During the fallout from the whole NSA/Snowden thing my brother invited me to some protest at our state's capitol building, and there was this short, fat dude sweating like a pig under his Guy Fawkes mask, waving a 9/11 truth sign at a protest that had nothing to do with his pet issue. He was always at the front of the march where all the cameras were. Jesus, he made us look like cocks. I hope the Texas sun gave him heatstroke.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 05:44
|
|
|
Big Beef City posted:Strangely, one of the best explanations for conspiracy theorists of all stripes is mostly missing from this thread and it's one of the most obvious explanations. I think this is proof in particular of just different personality types that are alien to me. The reason is because I just can't relate to holding on to a particular belief just to feel SMARTER. I don't have to feel smarter than people around me. If I do feel like the smartest guy in the room, I'll immediately start to feel weirded out or arrogant and I'd back up a bit. But it's not just about feeling smarter. I think other motivations keep people clinging to 9/11 Truther stuff, anti-vacccine stuff, chemtrails, and other conspiracies that are proven wrong. There's big Facebook groups, primarily the libertarian groups--you know, the anti-vaccine, pro-organic crowds, who all share 9/11 trutherism as a strict dogma. Now, the funny thing is, there's nuggets of wisdom with these people. I'm also anti-big-corporation, I shop at farmers markets and I'm idealistic about making the world a better place, but the moment you say anything to these big groups to the effect of "Hay, guys, this particular 9/11 conspiracy theory might not be accurate..." then you get attacked by waves of "SHEEP! This person is a confused, lost soul!" Or, my favorite "Rencall is a disinformation agent who probably works for the NSA." It's a human nature thing. It's religious methods of thinking. I think it appears even in unlikely places where everyone THINKS they've overcome group-think, but it comes sneaking back.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 05:53
|
|
|
In a world where the truth is a nightmare, some people decide that they can just go up and make their dream scenarios a reality.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 06:00
|
|
|
BUSH 2112 posted:This and the idea that the government knew about the attacks before they happened ring true to me. I'm not saying that I believe that those conspiracy theories are true, but if any of them are I believe it's those two. The way they used Flight 93 in the media feels exactly the same as the way they used the "heroic rescue" of Jessica Lynch or the story of Pat Tillman. It fits perfectly in with the neo-conservative agenda. It's also more fun in a paranoid spy story type sense. Holographic planes and thermite charges and crisis actors and reptile overlords are, well, frankly they're boring. It's like something my brother would have written at age 15 specifically to annoy his hated English teacher (and intentionally removing all paragraph structure, producing a solid wall of text, merely to make it more unreadable). But a secret government conspiracy run by a few regular humans with all their flaws and failings, that's kinda interesting. With blackmail, and bribes, and secret memos, and some Brutus-like character given twisted information and convinced to do the wrong thing for what he falsely believes to be all the right reasons. Now there's something worth reading about. But some people like outlandish stories with clearly defined good and evil and hate the subtle spy stuff with moral greyness. Maybe that's why some people like stupid conspiracy theories? Everything's so clear cut and shiny and the monsters are reptiles not people. Anyway, the line that "the government knew about the attacks" would reveal a level of naivete about the nature of government in the theorist, even if it was true, because the government isn't some person with a single cohesive mind. What if, say, a disliked field agent is given a dead-end job in some part of the world and discovers the terrorist plot, and files his report, only to have it totally ignored? Does that count as the government knowing? Does it count as suppression of vital information even if the suppression happened because of the personal dislike a bureaucrat had for a spy rather than for a war excuse? Or it could have been "The Boy who Cried Wolf" all over again; an agent with a history of exaggeration finally stumbles onto the plot, only to have his boss laugh at his silly ideas of terrorist plans. The idea that they had some information, but ignored it, then suppressed the knowledge of their ignorance after the fact to save face, is something that rings true, even though it's unlikely. It speaks of incompetence, ethical misconduct, and moral failings, but not vast cartoonishly evil ones, making it seem a lot more plausible due to it not advocating a supreme level of malevolence. Remember rule #1 of bureaucracy, the highest imperative for unelected officials that surpasses both greed and ambition: cover your own rear end. IronClaymore fucked around with this message at 06:31 on Sep 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 06:26
|
|
|
Rencall posted:So when I encounter truthers, which is becoming increasingly common, I enter the conversation optimistically that it will be a smart discussion, sort-of like talking about the JFK assassination, which conspiracy theorists can lay out a pretty solid case about. Is this even really "conspiracy-theorist" territory? Does anybody who knows what the Warren Commission was seriously believe that Oswald acted alone? I mean, sure, to theorise otherwise is to theorise a conspiracy of sorts, but it's hardly the same thing as thinking there are aliens in Area 51. I thought every educated person took it pretty much as fact that JFK was killed by some sort of monied or political interest, most likely either Texan politicians or some rogue element of the CIA.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 09:49
|
|
|
I know a person who thinks the US/jews did 9/11. They never really had a fully thought out plot, they'd just flit from one wrong idea to another as soon as the flaws in each became apparent. They'd fall back on claims of "studying history" (youtubing loosechange for muslems: The arrivals) to backup their poo poo. It always seems their motivation was just that it wasn't muslims. They're pretty stupid. http://wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Arrivals
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 10:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 11:36 |
|
|
My theory is that the government pulls so much bullshit all of the time that ends up being real (PRISM), they put themselves in a position to "buy anything" that fits with that behavior, regardless if it makes one loving bit of sense. The one thing I don't get is of all the truther bullshit that makes no Goddamn sense, rarely do you see them suggest the US Government simply turned a blind eye to terrorists they were aware of. Now obviously this didn't happen - what did happen was far more of an arrogant security gently caress-up in a lot of ways - but you could make a far more logical case for that than hilarious poo poo like "They planted bombs on all the floors of the building" and such. It's like they go out of their way to make their theories really stupid on top of thinking the event itself was a conspiracy. That's the part that gets me. For example, is it easier to believe: - The US Government infiltrated the plane/used remote piloting to bomb the towers before destroying the evidence, while all the passengers are fake and do not exist? (An actual theory I've seen posted several times); this is often doubled up with the explosives story and other crazy bullshit - The CIA and Osama Bin Laden, who's body as never shown to the public, orchestrated the event together in order to influence world events by using real terrorists. You could even go as far as to accuse Bin Laden as being a deep cover agent. How is anyone going to argue this with fact, when it's not based in any fact - rather than just refuting in your face facts? See, in scenario B.. there's literally no way to disprove it (even if it is again, bullshit) while scenario A is provable in a flat out objective sense, just reviewing the evidence. So again, what perplexes me is why the truthers will go with something totally batshit like scenario A over something that's far, far harder to disprove (because it's a wild accusation, pretty much)? Oh well, I'll personally never understand why people have to make up conspiracy theories when so much terrible insane poo poo happens right out in the open. DISCLAIMER: Again I don't believe in either of these things, I'm just saying if I was making up a conspiracy theory, I think I'd make up something that couldn't be disproved with fifteen minutes of research blatantly. Blazing Ownager fucked around with this message at 10:38 on Sep 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 10:30
|
|