# Do you believe in conspiracy theories?



## Everness

Apparently one in 3 Americans do. 

According to a recent poll conducted from July 6 through 24 at the Scripps Survey Research Center at the University of Ohio more than one-third of Americans suspect federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East.

http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll

"One out of three sounds high, but that may very well be right," said Lee Hamilton, former vice chairman of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also called the 9/11 commission).

http://www.nypost.com/news/national...as_hargrove______and_guido_h__stempel_iii.htm

Other results are interesting:

40% of individuals polled believe that "Officials in the federal government were directly responsible for the assassination of U.S. president John F. Kennedy" and 38% believe that "The federal government is withholding proof of the existence of intelligent life from others planets."

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/12765

Are conspiracy theories popular in your country or is this mostly an American phenomenon?


----------



## Kräuter_Fee

If you ask me... I don't believe one thing about what I've heard about 9/11, I don't believe a plane hit the Pentagon, I don't believe Al-Qaeda is what we are told.
I don't believe the man went to the Moon.
I don't believe those terrorist attacks in Iraq are perpetrated by Iraqis.

If these theories are popular in my country or not... I haven't heard much of this on TV, but reading on the Internet and being logical that's the conclusion I get. I've talked to people who simply don't know what to believe.

Talking about this is a taboo anyway, I guess many people don't dare to say they don't believe the stuff mainstream media tells us.


----------



## ElaineG

> I don't believe one thing about what I've heard about 9/11,I don't believe a plane hit the Pentagon,


 
I'll defer to you, of course. You read about it on the Internet. I always thought one of my close friends died in that plane that "didn't" hit the Pentagon, and that I saw with my own eyes in real time (the same eyes that watched the towers fall here in NY) the Blackberry messages that she sent that morning, including the farewell message she sent her husband after the people on the Pentagon plane learned what happened in New York.

But thanks for setting me straight Krauter Fee. I'll get my info on the tragic events in my life from Internet readers in Spain on from now on. 

Just one question: Where is my friend, if the plane that she was on didn't hit the Pentagon? Anyway you look at it, we haven't heard from her in 5 years.


----------



## maxiogee

From what I know of humanity gleaned in a life lived not as wisely as it might, I cannot believe in the ability of people to maintain conspiracies as big as those favoured by "conspiracy theorists" when faced with so much evidence of humanity's ability to cock-up even the simplest of arrangements.
Of course, the best conspiracy theories seem to surround things which can never be proven - but one of the biggest was proved to be false (the Protocols of the Elders of Zion) but that didn't stop people believing it.

My encounters with conspiracy theorists leads me to believe that they are ever-so-slightly more abnormal than I.


----------



## lsp

Kräuter_Fee said:


> If you ask me... I don't believe one thing about what I've heard about 9/11, I don't believe a plane hit the Pentagon, I don't believe Al-Qaeda is what we are told.
> I don't believe the man went to the Moon.
> I don't believe those terrorist attacks in Iraq are perpetrated by Iraqis.
> 
> If these theories are popular in my country or not... I haven't heard much of this on TV, but reading on the Internet and being logical that's the conclusion I get. I've talked to people who simply don't know what to believe.
> 
> Talking about this is a taboo anyway, I guess many people don't dare to say they don't believe the stuff mainstream media tells us.


I didn't see the first hit, I only saw it fall. But a plane sure as shit hit the second tower. You just read an eyewitness account right here on the internet from someone with no connections to mainstream media. Maybe now you can believe it. I shudder to think what theory regarding the towers and terrorism would be plausible to you, but I guess these events are so ugly, even the truth is hard to believe.


----------



## .   1

I do not believe in conspiracy theories.
I do believe that we are only being told what Bush and Blair and Howard allow us to be told and it is my opinion that truncated truth is a lie.

.,,


----------



## GenJen54

Krauter Fee said:
			
		

> I don't believe one thing about what I've heard about 9/11, *I don't believe a plane hit the Pentagon*, I don't believe Al-Qaeda is what we are told.



I am in the camp with Elaine and lsp. I would like to know what you do believe. My husband worked for four years in the Pentagon, in the next "side" over from the portion that was hit. He frequented the area often, and still has several friends, military and civilian, who work in the building, many of whom were in the building on the day it was hit. Two of my husbands former co-workers, who had transferred to another department, died on 9/11.

Another former co-worker, with whom my husband still corresponds regularly, was in the parking lot when the "incident" occurred. *He saw the whole thing with his own eyes*. Perhaps, according to one of your theories, this was an abhorration brought about by hours of endless brain-washing he endured in therapy for Post Traumatic Stress disorder, when he was hypnotized to believe what the government-hired therapist wanted him to believe. Perhaps that's more plausible.

I have other friends who were eye-witnesses to the events in D.C., and in New York. I'm sure these boards are filled with Americans who can attest to this, but perhaps they have all been injected with the same mindchip by controlling aliens who wanted us to believe something so we all have the same newsreel in our heads "telling" us what we saw.  I guess I'll have to go re-watch some past episodes of the X-files to see if any of those theories work to explain it all.  



			
				.. said:
			
		

> I do not believe in conspiracy theories.
> I do believe that we are only being told what Bush and Blair and Howard allow us to be told and it is my opinion that truncated truth is a lie.


 Somewhere in the middle lies the truth. I agree with this exactly. Is, and/or has been the government been holding back? Certainly. I'm sure every government holds back something from its people. There is a difference between what is "unknown" and the utterly absurd, however.


----------



## ElaineG

> I guess these events are so ugly, even the truth is hard to believe.


 
I think you've hit the nail on the head.  I think people find something comforting in the idea that there's a "master government plan" organizing all these events, rather than simply admitting that we are all vulnerable to violence and hate.

At least that's what I was trying to say back here: http://forum.wordreference.com/showpost.php?p=693610&postcount=6


----------



## Kräuter_Fee

Having pilots in my family, I've heard the discussion of the Pentagon's airplane many times. It's not a story I simply believe because I surf the net and read stuff. No.

Now, if my opinion disturbs you that's another thing.

You want to know why I believe that? Read this here.

_*Although it measures 13,6 meters high, or the equivalent of three stories, the Boeing pierced the façade of the building only at the height of the ground floor and the second floor*. The landing gear, then, must have been torn off before the airplane crashed into the base of the Pentagon. All this (see the cover photo) without damaging the magnificent lawn in the foreground, nor the wall, nor the parking lot, nor the heliport. Indeed, there is a landing pad for small helicopters in this area.
__Despite its weight (100 tons) and its speed (between 400 and 700 kph[[250 to 430 mph]]), the airplane *only destroyed the first ring of the building*. This is what one observes distinctly in this photograph.
http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Se...8006R-002.html
_ 
    Sorry, here is the source: *"L'effroyable Imposture" by Thierry Meyssan, best-seller published in 2002*
_Mod Note: Please respect forum Copyright rules, and post a link to texts greater than four sentences._ 
Very interesting book, at least it gives you another point of view, you can read it and then either think it's nonsense or believe it, but at least you get more than a version.


Elaine, I'm sorry for your friend. I always wonder what happened with that plane, if it existed, if not, if it exploded in the air... I don't know. I'm sorry, but I don't believe a plane hit the Pentagon. 
And it's not because the facts are so ugly that I don't want to believe them. I'm used to the US administration's lies so I don't trust anything of what they say anymore.


----------



## GenJen54

Krauter Fee said:
			
		

> You want to know why I believe that? Read this here.



HERE's another take on the subject.  I guess the "debris," including bits of fuselage, landing gear, interior sections of the plane, etc. was planted.

Like I said, we know of an eye witness who saw the plane hit.  I guess such accounts are not valid in your book.


----------



## .   1

GenJen54 said:


> HERE's another take on the subject. I guess the "debris," including bits of fuselage, landing gear, interior sections of the plane, etc. was planted.
> 
> Like I said, we know of an eye witness who saw the plane hit. I guess such accounts are not valid in your book.


I was standing in front of the television and saw the images of the planes hitting the towers and told my wife that it was a fake.
I waxed lyrical about physics and momentum and Newton's Laws but I did not know what I was talking about as I have no experience of such massive objects (a passenger plane) travelling at massive speeds colliding with massive objects.

The Pentagon plane did not skim along the ground to hit the Pentagon and plane crashes like that are not analogus to car crashes.

A piece of debris traveling at 100 kph will bounce off and be seen whereas a picec of debris travelling at 500 kph will punch right through just about anything.

If U.S America wanted to fake something I suspect that a target with less witnesses would be apropos.

.,,


----------



## Jimmy Jazz

Well, I don't believe in conspiracy theories. I believe in fear as a way to govern a country. And, in my opinion, that's what politicians and the mass media are doing nowadays.

The cold war ended and governments had to find another enemy to control the population. 

I don't mean that 9/11 was a fake, however, I'm sure that George W. Bush knew that something awful was going to happened and he didn't do anything. 

We also can talk about the caricature conflict, fear in British airports, etcetera.


----------



## .   1

Jimmy Jazz said:


> Well, I don't believe in conspiracy theories. I believe in fear as a way to govern a country. And, in my opinion, that's what politicians and the mass media are doing nowadays.
> 
> The cold war ended and governments had to find another enemy to control the population.
> 
> I don't mean that 9/11 was a fake, however, I'm sure that George W. Bush knew that something awful was going to happened and he didn't do anything.
> 
> We also can talk about the caricature conflict, fear in British airports, etcetera.


I am not sure if Dubya knows very much of anything and of course he knew that something awful was going to happen but he didn't have enough specifics to do anything about it.

I utterly agree with the totality of your post.

.,,


----------



## danielfranco

As already mentioned before, I believe the reality of the matter lies between two extremes here. I think that there are endless conspiracies going on at all levels in the institutions that would hoard power. For certain, I've seen children scheme and conspire with each other, and form cliques, and exclude other children from belonging and from knowing about it (has anybody been left uninvited to a birthday party ever before?).
But in order to pull and absolutely control the kinds of conspiracies that are legendary in the popular mind, I think those who participate and those who observe would have to exist in a vacuum, where all possibilities can be controled. In the day-to-day world, I would think it'd be nigh impossible to pull off.
But what do I know...


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Generally, I am sceptical about conspiracies. I simply observe that the greatest events, esp. tragedies, in the world happen as a result of a unique concourse of circumstances generated by the incredible human stupidity, negligence, ambitions etc when present on all sides. A small group of people could never decide the future of the world or even parts of it, at least, they can never make everybody play into their hands.
But I try to avoid being that die-hard sceptic type either. I see lots of people, esp. in the countries with problems, corruption, poor economy and political situation, who have made it their life philosophy to see lies and deceit anywhere and assume everything said by the media or government or anybody else is untrue. It is nice to have your own opinion, of course, but I have always found such "they are liars and idiots, - I know better" approach profoundly idiotic. Not at all everything that is said is untrue, even the mainstream media are not completely deceitful. So the initial presumtion that you cannot believe anything just complicates your life. This utter cynicism and scepticism, just as much as blaming conspiracies for everything, is a sign of no great brain and embitterness, that`s what my feeling generally is. My opinion is one simply has to use one`s own good judgement in life.


----------



## Everness

Kräuter_Fee said:


> If you ask me... I don't believe one thing about what I've heard about 9/11, I don't believe a plane hit the Pentagon, I don't believe Al-Qaeda is what we are told.
> I don't believe the man went to the Moon.
> I don't believe those terrorist attacks in Iraq are perpetrated by Iraqis.
> 
> If these theories are popular in my country or not... I haven't heard much of this on TV, but reading on the Internet and being logical that's the conclusion I get. I've talked to people who simply don't know what to believe.
> 
> Talking about this is a taboo anyway, I guess many people don't dare to say they don't believe the stuff mainstream media tells us.



Kräuter_Fee,

I must say that I find your response extremely refreshing and inspiring. In the past, I would  have catalogued you and your statements as looney, to say the least. But not anymore! Actually, I'm also very pleased with this survey shocker, as the New York Post calls it. The fact that one in 3 Americans say the U.S. aided 9/11 is a sign of good societal insight and judgment. (It's true that in other areas we have shown poor insight and judgment, e.g. we reelected W. We need to work on consistency!)   

I find that people are too naive or lazy and tend to go with the official story without using critical thinking. Why do 2/3 of Americans don't believe that the U.S. aided 9/11. If you ask them, they will probably respond, "What do you mean? Didn't you watch TV or read the newspapers?" We just go with what we are told. We go with the flow. We don't have the cojones to take on any official story on any topic. We don't want to be seen as weirdos or subversive. 

I think that your skepticism is very healthy and needed.


----------



## Victoria32

. said:


> I do not believe in conspiracy theories.
> I do believe that we are only being told what Bush and Blair and Howard allow us to be told and it is my opinion that truncated truth is a lie.
> 
> .,,


I agree with you .,, althiough I do not have any fixed ideas about what happened, I don't think we have the full story, and may never have - well, not necessarily within my lifetime, that is...


----------



## maxiogee

Kräuter_Fee said:


> If you ask me... I don't believe one thing about what I've heard about 9/11, I don't believe a plane hit the Pentagon, I don't believe Al-Qaeda is what we are told.
> I don't believe the man went to the Moon.
> I don't believe those terrorist attacks in Iraq are perpetrated by Iraqis.
> 
> If these theories are popular in my country or not... I haven't heard much of this on TV, but reading on the Internet and being logical that's the conclusion I get. I've talked to people who simply don't know what to believe.
> 
> Talking about this is a taboo anyway, I guess many people don't dare to say they don't believe the stuff mainstream media tells us.





Everness said:


> Kräuter_Fee,
> 
> I must say that I find your response extremely refreshing and inspiring. In the past, I would  have catalogued you and your statements as looney, to say the least. But not anymore! Actually, I'm also very pleased with this survey shocker, as the New York Post calls it. The fact that one in 3 Americans say the U.S. aided 9/11 is a sign of good societal insight and judgment. (It's true that in other areas we have shown poor insight and judgment, e.g. we reelected W. We need to work on consistency!)
> 
> I find that people are too naive or lazy and tend to go with the official story without using critical thinking. Why do 2/3 of Americans don't believe that the U.S. aided 9/11. If you ask them, they will probably respond, "What do you mean? Didn't you watch TV or read the newspapers?" We just go with what we are told. We go with the flow. We don't have the cojones to take on any official story on any topic. We don't want to be seen as weirdos or subversive.
> 
> I think that your skepticism is very healthy and needed.




What Krauter Fee evinces is not a healthy scepticism - but rather a naiveté bordering on that of religious adherents who do not question their priesthood's pronouncements.
Disbelief is the new religion - not unbelief - but a positive refusal to believe things which a coterie of malcontents declare to be cover-ups on a grand scale.
Conspiracy theories share much in common with religion…
One needs to suspend belief in what is deemed possible and believe in something which seems impossible;
Outsiders who attempt to prove the falsity of the proposition are derided as being unenlightened;
There is a priesthood - the ones who propagate these theories are seen as having access to arcane wisdom.
There is a great peril threatening - and those who do not believe will somehow assist this peril to come to pass.

Good grief, is there not enough which is truly mysterious in the world without having to go inventing stuff?


----------



## .   1

Kräuter_Fee said:


> I don't believe the man went to the Moon.


Why?

.,,


----------



## LV4-26

For those who said they don't believe in conspiracy theories. Do you have exactly the same position about the assassination of JFK as you have about 9/11? (i.e., if I undestood you well, 100% sure there was no conspiracy at all).


----------



## Outsider

Everness said:


> According to a recent poll conducted from July 6 through 24 at the Scripps Survey Research Center at the University of Ohio more than one-third of Americans suspect federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East.


I have read about some of the theories that the 9/11 attacks were carried or assisted by Americans, and it's one of the most nonsensical conspiracy theories I've ever heard. Poppycock!

It's a different matter to ask whether all that could be done was done. Perhaps the image of George Bush reading a children's book while the WTC was on fire, from Michael Moore's film _Fahrenheit 9/11_, stuck in the minds of some Americans.

But, to tell you the truth, this is one thing where I can't blame Mr. Bush or his cabinet. By early September 11, 2001, it was already too late to prevent the attacks. And I'm sure that other American government officials, better prepared for such an event than Mr. Bush himself, were doing all they could to control the damage.



Everness said:


> Are conspiracy theories popular in your country or is this mostly an American phenomenon?


I heard the 9/11 conspiracy theory from a coworker. I'm not sure how seriously he took it. He can be a bit of a joker.


----------



## Maja

Just watch The X Files and Whack the Dog! 

edit: WAG the Dog it is then!!! Sorry, my bet!


----------



## GenJen54

Maja said:


> Just watch The X Files and Whack the Dog!



I believe you mean "Wag the Dog."  "Whack the Dog," according to IMDB, is a porn title.


----------



## Outsider

For those who doubt the Moon landings, I suggest having a look at The Bad Astronomer's take on the matter, or at the Clavius website.



GenJen54 said:


> .. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not believe in conspiracy theories.
> I do believe that we are only being told what Bush and Blair and Howard allow us to be told and it is my opinion that truncated truth is a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> Somewhere in the middle lies the truth. I agree with this exactly. Is, and/or has been the government been holding back? Certainly. I'm sure every government holds back something from its people. There is a difference between what is "unknown" and the utterly absurd, however.
Click to expand...

With that I do not agree, Jen, though it's a common saying these days: "just listen to the two sides you consider the extremes, and the truth should be in the middle". I don't buy that. Sometimes, one of the two sides is wronger than the other, if not lying through its teeth. For example, when it comes to the Moon landing hoax, the doubters are not "half right". They are just plain wrong. I also don't see why there should always be only two sides to every discussion, in the first place.


----------



## Outsider

LV4-26 said:


> For those who said they don't believe in conspiracy theories. Do you have exactly the same position about the assassination of JFK as you have about 9/11? (i.e., if I undestood you well, 100% sure there was no conspiracy at all).


A conspiracy in the case of JFK seems more plausible to me, but, to tell you the truth, I don't care much about how he died. It was all a long time ago.


----------



## Cereth

I also don´t believe man has landed on the moon...you can see a number in one of the rocks near from Armstrong!!! why sould a rock have a number (it seems it was located following the same method that people used before on Hollywood sets)...whatta shame but man has not been in the moon, why they don´t land again? We have more hight tech gadgets and equipment now! Why the don´t go again??

About 9/11....well... I think an American Citizen is more prepared for talking about the subject... And I just don´t believe Al-Qaeda is what news make us think...

In México...well we have our own "conspiracy" problems related to the Recent Government Elections....maybe I´m an apathic sinner but I just don´t care, Politicians in Mexico have no shades...they are just black, ignorant and careless of people´s wealth...


----------



## Kräuter_Fee

maxiogee said:


> What Krauter Fee evinces is not a healthy scepticism - but rather a naiveté bordering on that of religious adherents who do not question their priesthood's pronouncements.
> Disbelief is the new religion - not unbelief - but a positive refusal to believe things which a coterie of malcontents declare to be cover-ups on a grand scale.
> Conspiracy theories share much in common with religion…
> One needs to suspend belief in what is deemed possible and believe in something which seems impossible;
> Outsiders who attempt to prove the falsity of the proposition are derided as being unenlightened;
> There is a priesthood - the ones who propagate these theories are seen as having access to arcane wisdom.
> There is a great peril threatening - and those who do not believe will somehow assist this peril to come to pass.
> 
> Good grief, is there not enough which is truly mysterious in the world without having to go inventing stuff?



Excuse me, but how can you say that? I'd rather say believing what you're told by politicians and by the media is more similar to religion than skepticism. Way too many things in 9/11 make no sense. 
If we remember how many times the USA has lied and how popular it is to create unfounded panic just to control people... I don't think it's crazy not to believe what they say.
It just seems that we _have_ to believe what we are told because if the most powerful people in the world say it it must be true. We aren't allowed to think, if you do you are branded as ignorant and naive.
I'm not skeptical because I feel like being different, I like reading the press, being informed and see way too many things that don't make sense, that's all.

And think for a moment... if everyone was skeptical maybe politicians wouldn't play with use like they do. They know that they can tell us almost anything because we will believe it and what's worse we won't do anything to prevent it. They are using us and yet there are people who defend them.


----------



## cuchuflete

maxiogee said:


> Conspiracy theories share much in common with religion…



Thanks for saying this.  I was about to post a comment
noting the similarity of conspiracy theories to the origins of many religions.  When people cannot explain something, or are terrified by it, they invent a supernatural force that "explains" it all very neatly, and attributes the unanswered questions to an intangible power.  It would be interesting to learn if there is a correlation between believers in conspiracy theories and religious myths.


----------



## LV4-26

cuchuflete said:


> Thanks for saying this.  I was about to post a comment
> noting the similarity of conspiracy theories to the origins of many religions. When people cannot explain something, or are terrified by it, they invent a supernatural force that "explains" it all very neatly, and attributes the unanswered questions to an intangible power.


Hi Cuchu,

I don't quite understand the parallel you're making. "Federal officials," as the survey puts it, are no intangible power.


----------



## trelu9

I couldn't agree more with Maxiogee about Kräuter_Fee's comments exemplyfing naivety (in the extreme, IMO) rather than real skepticism.

In response to ElaineG's post about how her friend died in the plane that hit the Pentagon, how she'd seen with her own eyes, in real-time, the messages her friend sent, Kräuter_Fee *totally dismisses* the first-hand account of someone who is obviously not a crank or a CIA agent (being a moderator in this forum, I presume not) and prefers to quote a couple of paragraphs from something she's probably read on a "9-11 Conspiracy" website, without even giving the source.

That says a lot to me. It also shows an amazing lack of tact and sensitivity, in my opinion.


----------



## LV4-26

trelu9 said:


> That says a lot to me.


What it says to me is that each one of us tries to handle cognitive dissonance as they can.


----------



## Kräuter_Fee

trelu9 said:


> I couldn't agree more with Maxiogee about Kräuter_Fee's comments exemplyfing naivety (in the extreme, IMO) rather than real skepticism.
> 
> In response to ElaineG's post about how her friend died in the plane that hit the Pentagon, how she'd seen with her own eyes, in real-time, the messages her friend sent, Kräuter_Fee *totally dismisses* the first-hand account of someone who is obviously not a crank or a CIA agent (being a moderator in this forum, I presume not) and prefers to quote a couple of paragraphs from something she's probably read on a "9-11 Conspiracy" website, without even giving the source.
> 
> That says a lot to me. It also shows an amazing lack of tact and sensitivity, in my opinion.


It's a pity that you aren't tolerant enough as to understand that there are people who have different opinions and beliefs. That's why the world is the way it is. 
Maybe you should be a bit more open-minded.


----------



## Outsider

It's very hard to defend the idea that 9/11 did not happen at all. There were thousands of eyewitnesses. Several media outlets reported the news live. Individual citizens filmed it -- I remember how impressed I was by the number of different films of the plane crashes and of the fall of the towers that were available.
You can think up conspiracy theories about what it was that brought down the towers, but claiming they did not come down is unreasonable.


----------



## Kräuter_Fee

Outsider said:


> It's very hard to defend the idea that 9/11 did not happen at all. There were thousands of eyewitnesses. Several media outlets reported the news live. Individual citizens filmed it -- I remember how impressed I was by the number of different films of the plane crashes and of the fall of the towers that were available.
> You can think up conspiracy theories about what it was that brought down the towers, but claiming they did not come down is unreasonable.


Sorry, I haven't read all the posts, I'm just wondering where you read that someone said this?


----------



## Outsider

Sorry. I read the following, and I guess I extrapolated too much. 



Kräuter_Fee said:


> If you ask me... I don't believe one thing about what I've heard about 9/11, I don't believe a plane hit the Pentagon [...]


So you think the attack on the Twin Towers was real, but not the attack on the Pentagon building? What makes one different from the other?


----------



## trelu9

Outsider said:


> You can think up conspiracy theories about what it was that brought down the towers, but claiming they did not come down is unreasonable.


I think "reasonability" is the key word.  
It's a pity that people who seem incapable of understanding this concept (religious fanatics, people who blindly believe in lame conspiracy theories, etc) resort to calling all "non-believers" close-minded, intolerant, etc...


----------



## Tsoman

No I dno't believe in conspiracy theories.

The government is not an abstract and nebulus god-like spirit.

It is a large organization made up of individuals who know the difference between right and wrong, each living their own lives. I'm sure there are some bad ones, but I think that most are the same as you and me.


----------



## vince

trelu9 said:


> I think "reasonability" is the key word.
> It's a pity that people who seem incapable of understanding this concept (religious fanatics, people who blindly believe in lame conspiracy theories, etc) resort to calling all "non-believers" close-minded, intolerant, etc...



You are misrepresenting what Kräuter Fee said. He/she did not say that the towers weren brought down (any photograph of NYC since 9/11 will show that they aren't there), neither is she/he claiming that all people who believe in the terrorist attacks are close-minded and intolerant. Her/his comment was directly specifically at you for calling her/him tactless and insensitive.

Conspiracy theories stimulate debate. Many of them are false and outlandish, but some of them eventually unearth hidden aspects of an event that would not have been revealed had everyone just bought the "official" story without question. It is unfair to dismiss all conspiracy theories as junk without analyzing them first, but it is also unreasonable to believe in conspiracy theories no matter how outlandish just because you don't trust the government.


----------



## ireney

Firstof all, I don't believe in conspiracy theories. Whenever a new "THEY LIED TO US!!!" theory comes out, I study what it says and try to see if it is even partially true.
 You see, I don't believe that goverments are above conspiracies. They are certainly not above missinforming the public. Therefore there's always the chance that there's a small part of truth around which the theory was built.
However, let's face it; Goverments' track record when it comes to hushing things is not all that good. So, in the case of the conspiracy theories, conspiracies in which a large number of people would have to be involved, it is practically impossible for the truth to remain hidden.


Another problem of the conspiracy theories is that they rarely give a plausible alternative. For instance, (and I ask you Kräuter_Fee just because I think you are the only one in this thread saying so? If not I apologise) a) did any plane crashed either in Pentagon or the Twin Towers? b) what really happened ?


----------



## GenJen54

Krauter Fee's argument is that she does not believe a plane crashed into the *Pentagon*. Several other theorists apparently agree with this, and have provided their own evidence to back this up.  

There is also great evidence to the contrary. This evidence includes first-hand and eye-witness accounts brought to her for discussion in this very thread.


----------



## Jimmy Jazz

ireney said:


> So, in the case of the conspiracy theories, conspiracies in which a large number of people would have to be involved, it is practically impossible for the truth to remain hidden.



Hum... I don't agree with you. There's a saying in Spain (and probably in the whole world) wich says: "The best way to hide the truth is revealing it to everyone".


----------



## Kräuter_Fee

Outsider said:


> Sorry. I read the following, and I guess I extrapolated too much.
> 
> So you think the attack on the Twin Towers was real, but not the attack on the Pentagon building? What makes one different from the other?



I don't say the attack wasn't real, _something_ crashed, but I don't believe it was a plane, it was probably a cruise missile. Millions of people throughout the world believe it, it's not a theory I created. People who know more than me and all of us altogether believe this too, others don't.
If you start reading about it on the Internet you can take your own conclusions. 

By the way, I want to make this clear: *I am not trying to convince anyone* or to make you believe that you are wrong and I am right. I don't believe 100% in anything that I haven't seen. Therefore, I consider the possibility that I am wrong, I just think it's more likely that I am not.

One more thing is, I don't know why I should trust politicians and the media more than conpiracy theories. Tell me, *what credibility do politicians and the media have? ZERO, none!* A government that tries to make us believe and swears that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that invades this country and massacres thousands or millions of people (including children, even babies and their mothers who are giving birth in maternity hospitals), a government that says that whoever doesn't support them is an enemy and makes the whole world send troops to the invaded country... what credibility does it have? *N-O-N-E*.

Now, if you believe what they say after all the lies, that's your problem. 




> For instance, (and I ask you Kräuter_Fee just because I think you are the only one in this thread saying so? If not I apologise) a) did any plane crashed either in Pentagon or the Twin Towers? b) what really happened ?



Ireney, you say that when you hear one of these theories you study it and take your own conclusion. That's great. Of course, not everyone believes them. Even when we have the same facts (for instance, the same media and the same conspiracy theories) there are people who will believe them and some won't. That's obvious, disagreement is something that always existed and will always exist.

You ask if any plane crashed either in the Pentagon or the Twin Towers. I don't doubt that a plane crashed into the towers, of course I believe it happened. What I don't believe is the Pentagon's version. 
What really happened? If I knew I'd probably be a spy, a 21st Century Mata Hari. None of us knows what happened. 
Now... if you ask me what _I believe_, I believe it was a missile and not a plane (I'm talking about the Pentagon), 
Why? I already said it, I'll quote myself again:




> _*Although it measures 13,6 meters high, or the equivalent of three stories, the Boeing pierced the façade of the building only at the height of the ground floor and the second floor*. The landing gear, then, must have been torn off before the airplane crashed into the base of the Pentagon. All this without damaging the magnificent lawn in the foreground, nor the wall, nor the parking lot, nor the heliport. Indeed, there is a landing pad for small helicopters in this area.
> _ _Despite its weight (100 tons) and its speed (between 400 and 700 kph[[250 to 430 mph]]), the airplane *only destroyed the first ring of the building*. This is what one observes distinctly in this photograph.
> http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Sep2001/010914-F-8006R-002.html
> _
> 
> *"L'effroyable Imposture" by Thierry Meyssan, best-seller published in 2002*




There's more than this, this is a quote of a book I read partially and I found it really interesting.


 And sorry if I am shocking anyone, this is a taboo as I already said.


----------



## ireney

Krauter_Fee first of all thank you for the speedy reply.

However such a theory begs for three questions

a) Did they know it before that the planes were going to crash? Did they even know when? While it doesn't take all that long to fire a missile from wherever it does take some time doesn't it? You can't just go "Blast! They just crashed two planes on the Twin Towers! What should we do? Sent a missile to hit the Pentagon"

b) If they knew it before, wouldn't they have sent a missile that would create similar damage with a Boeing?

c) what was the reason? Surely the theory must give some explanation. I don't want to diminish in anyway the loss of the human lives in Pentagon but the truth is, it's the Twin Towers everyone remembers and refers to. That's the one that 'cause more "sensation"

You see, I don't get into technical stuff when I can avoid it (it takes an enormous amount of time for me to grasp exactly what they say)



Jimmy Jazz said:


> Hum... I don't agree with you. There's a saying in Spain (and probably in the whole world) wich says: "The best way to hide the truth is revealing it to everyone".



I think we're talking about two different issues here. I am saying that the conspirators in theories such as the Pentagon one would be numerous. Two people holding a secret is one too many. Numerous people holding a secret is sci-fi. 
What you seem to refer to is the practise of letting the truth out and making sure that everyone knows it and no one believes it. That's a different thing. It's like when a lawyer airs his client's soon-to-be-revealed secret so that he can give the explanation he wants, hoping that anything the other side is going to say afterwards will sound false.


----------



## Victoria32

Outsider said:


> It's very hard to defend the idea that 9/11 did not happen at all. There were thousands of eyewitnesses. Several media outlets reported the news live. Individual citizens filmed it -- I remember how impressed I was by the number of different films of the plane crashes and of the fall of the towers that were available.
> You can think up conspiracy theories about what it was that brought down the towers, but claiming they did not come down is unreasonable.


I am a 911 sceptic - _of course it happened, that's not the question _- which is, not did it happen,_ but how and why_? Al Q, no, I don't believe they are the shadowy evil behind everything - that's just too convenient!


----------



## Jimmy Jazz

ireney said:


> I think we're talking about two different issues here. I am saying that the conspirators in theories such as the Pentagon one would be numerous. Two people holding a secret is one too many. Numerous people holding a secret is sci-fi.
> What you seem to refer to is the practise of letting the truth out and making sure that everyone knows it and no one believes it. That's a different thing. It's like when a lawyer airs his client's soon-to-be-revealed secret so that he can give the explanation he wants, hoping that anything the other side is going to say afterwards will sound false.



Ok, you're right. I misunderstood you.


----------



## Kräuter_Fee

> Krauter_Fee first of all thank you for the speedy reply.


 No problem, I'm on holidays, too much free time 


> a) Did they know it before that the planes were going to crash? Did they even know when? While it doesn't take all that long to fire a missile from wherever it does take some time doesn't it? You can't just go "Blast! They just crashed two planes on the Twin Towers! What should we do? Sent a missile to hit the Pentagon"


 If "they" knew it? 
I believe all this (Al-Qaeda, the attacks) is a creation made in America. What is Al-Qaeda? Where does it come from? Saudi Arabia... sure, but who is behind that? Who's Bin Laden's family? I believe the USA is behind it all. Why does the USA protect Saudi Arabia the way it does? Why nobody mentions what happens in Saudi Arabia (something comparable to what Talibans did, if not worse)? 
There is only one thing that rules in the world: money.



> b) If they knew it before, wouldn't they have sent a missile that would create similar damage with a Boeing?


 "They"? Who? The US Government? They knew it before because they did it. Al-Qaeda



> c) what was the reason? Surely the theory must give some explanation. I don't want to diminish in anyway the loss of the human lives in Pentagon but the truth is, it's the Twin Towers everyone remembers and refers to. That's the one that 'cause more "sensation"


 Having a reason to attack Afghanistan, Iraq and all what came afterwards? 
Creating hatred against Arabs? Making the Middle-Eastern conflict worse than it was?
Creating panic in people???
Why do they keep showing new images of 9-11 every one or two months? Why do they keep talking about possible attacks? What is terrorism? Who are the real terrorists?


----------



## Jimmy Jazz

Victoria32 said:


> I am a 911 sceptic - _of course it happened, that's not the question _- which is, not did it happen,_ but how and why_? Al Q, no, I don't believe they are the shadowy evil behind everything - that's just too convenient!



I think they're behind 9/11, but because Dubya let them to do it. In my opinion, state terrorism can be active or passive. The first one is used to defeat the enemy of the state. The second one grants to the governments the utter control of the population.


----------



## Kräuter_Fee

Jimmy Jazz said:


> I think they're behind 9/11, but because Dubya let them to do it. In my opinion, state terrorism can be active or passive. The first one is used to defeat the enemy of the state. The second one grants to the governments the utter control of the population.


I think the discussion isn't if Al-Qaeda did it or not, it is... who is behind Al-Qaeda?


----------



## Jimmy Jazz

Who? I suppose Arab sheikes are the leaders. Behind Al-Qaeda we also can find years of humiliation, murders and invasions by Western countries to arab countries. It's hardly surprising its existence.


----------



## GenJen54

Mod Note: While the question "Who Is behind Al-Quaeda" merits discussion, please open a new thread for it. Thank you.

Forer@ comment: I'm still waiting on Krauter Fee's explanation as to the eye-witness and other "first-hand" accounts as brought to her in these very forums.


----------



## Everness

Kräuter_Fee said:


> Excuse me, but how can you say that? I'd rather say believing what you're told by politicians and by the media is more similar to religion than skepticism. Way too many things in 9/11 make no sense.
> 
> *Don't be so hard on Tony. He is simply doing his job. You need to understand that The Holy Order of the One and Only Truth and its current priests don't like competition. They have defined what the truth is and if you dare to even talk about alternative truths, well... you'll have to deal with their vitriolic criticism. Of course they can't back up their claims of univocal right to the truth but don't forget that all religions, even The Holy Order of the One and Only Truth, don't need to prove anything. It's an article of faith. *
> 
> If we remember how many times the USA has lied and how popular it is to create unfounded panic just to control people... I don't think it's crazy not to believe what they say.
> 
> *Actually it's the sanest thing to do. Thirty-six percent of respondents overall said it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them "because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East."  http://www.nypost.com/news/national...as_hargrove______and_guido_h__stempel_iii.htm
> People are starting to connect the dots. However, you'll still find many people that don't even want to discuss or consider alternative versions of history. I think that fear is the driving force behind their behavior. They don't want to piss off the gods and the priests. *
> 
> It just seems that we _have_ to believe what we are told because if the most powerful people in the world say it it must be true. We aren't allowed to think, if you do you are branded as ignorant and naive.
> I'm not skeptical because I feel like being different, I like reading the press, being informed and see way too many things that don't make sense, that's all.
> 
> *What you say makes sense. But the priests of The Holy Order of the One and Only Truth don't like you to think critically. They want you to conform. They have zero tolerance to any type of deviation from the truth sanctioned from above. And if you don't conform, they will accuse you of being part of the conspiracy to remove the Republicans from government. If this happens, they warn us that America won't be able to export hamburgers and democracy to the rest of the world. *
> 
> And think for a moment... if everyone was skeptical maybe politicians wouldn't play with use like they do. They know that they can tell us almost anything because we will believe it and what's worse we won't do anything to prevent it. They are using us and yet there are people who defend them.
> 
> *Now you've pissed the few people that you hadn't yet alienated. Please remember this: People don't mind being used, but they hate when you point it out. *


----------



## Kräuter_Fee

GenJen54 said:


> Forer@ comment: I'm still waiting on Krauter Fee's explanation as to the eye-witness and other "first-hand" accounts as brought to her in these very forums.


All I can tell you is that it's *technically impossible* that such a plane, at such a speed, with such a weight crashed against the Pentagon and left so little damage and didn't leave any rests of its tail. It's *impossible*. 
Any plane crash, at any height will leave the tail. For instance, when those two planes crashed in the air(one was a Russian plane full of children and the other was a DHL plane) at 90 degrees, at a very high speed (over 750kph) and the tails were on the ground after the crash.
In the Pentagon you don't see that even though the crash in the Pentagon was *much lighter*. 

Now tell me... how do you explain that???


----------



## trelu9

*vince:*

You are misrepresenting what Kräuter Fee said.

No, you are misrepresenting what I said. Try to read it again more carefully.

He/she did not say that the towers weren brought down (any photograph of NYC since 9/11 will show that they aren't there), 

I didn't that say he/she did.

neither is she/he claiming that all people who believe in the terrorist attacks are close-minded and intolerant.

And I definitely didn't say that.

Her/his comment was directly specifically at you for calling her/him tactless and insensitive.


Thanks for telling me that the comment was "directly specifically" at me, I wouldn't have known if you hadn't pointed it out. His/her comments were tactless and insensitive in my opinion (i.e. someone gives you an account of how their friend died in a terrorist attack and you say "Oh, I'm sorry about that, I don't know where your friend is but I don't believe that happened...") and if I am close-minded and intolerant for merely pointing out this person's opinions as naive (to say the least) then so be it.

Conspiracy theories stimulate debate. Many of them are false and outlandish, but some of them eventually unearth hidden aspects of an event that would not have been revealed had everyone just bought the "official" story without question. It is unfair to dismiss all conspiracy theories as junk without analyzing them first, but it is also unreasonable to believe in conspiracy theories no matter how outlandish just because you don't trust the government.

Yes, I'm sure everyone already knows all that. Anything original to say?




Kräuter_Fee said:


> And sorry if I am shocking anyone, this is a taboo as I already said.


 
Nothing you've said is shocking, in fact it's mind-numbingly trite and predictable.
My 14-year-old cousin is going through the same "Don't believe the mass-media lies/the government is just lying using us, man!/9-11 never happened, the moon landing was a hoax, blah blah" phase, I think you'd get along well with him.


----------



## .   1

Kräuter_Fee said:


> All I can tell you is that it's *technically impossible* that such a plane, at such a speed, with such a weight crashed against the Pentagon and left so little damage and didn't leave any rests of its tail. It's *impossible*.
> Any plane crash, at any height will leave the tail. For instance, when those two planes crashed in the air(one was a Russian plane full of children and the other was a DHL plane) at 90 degrees, at a very high speed (over 750kph) and the tails were on the ground after the crash.
> In the Pentagon you don't see that even though the crash in the Pentagon was *much lighter*.
> 
> Now tell me... how do you explain that???


Physics.
The Pentagon was far more massive than the plane and the Pentagon did not move or disintergrate,  The mid air collison would not have been a 'mirror collision' in which each part of one plane hit the opposite part of the other plane but with the Pentagon this was not an issue.  All of the plane hit the Pentagon and Newtonian Physics dictated the rest.

Note to Everness.
I do hope that you are not referring to me with your broad brush statement about maxiogee and his contributions.
*Now you've pissed the few people that you hadn't yet alienated. Please remember this: People don't mind being used, but they hate when you point it out. *
I feel neither alienated nor pissed off by his postings although I am not sure that I can say the same of the effects some of your pointed posts.

.,,


----------



## Kräuter_Fee

Everness said:
			
		

> *Don't be so hard on Tony. He is simply doing his job. You need to understand that The Holy Order of the One and Only Truth and its current priests don't like competition. They have defined what the truth is and if you dare to even talk about alternative truths, well... you'll have to deal with their vitriolic criticism. Of course they can't back up their claims of univocal right to the truth but don't forget that all religions, even The Holy Order of the One and Only Truth, don't need to prove anything. It's an article of faith. *


I see that _Holy Order_ is widespread... you are right, that's a good comparison: "the current priests". Before it was the Church, you couldn't question God's existence. Now it's politicians. Tomorrow it will be robots maybe.

*



			Actually it's the sanest thing to do. Thirty-six percent of respondents overall said it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them "because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East."  http://www.nypost.com/news/nationaln...tempel_iii.htm
People are starting to connect the dots. However, you'll still find many people that don't even want to discuss or consider alternative versions of history. I think that fear is the driving force behind their behavior. They don't want to piss off the gods and the priests.
		
Click to expand...

*I confess... I would have never thought Americans would doubt about it. But I am happy to see that 


*



			What you say makes sense. But the priests of The Holy Order of the One and Only Truth don't like you to think critically. They want you to conform. They have zero tolerance to any type of deviation from the truth sanctioned from above. And if you don't conform, they will accuse you of being part of the conspiracy to remove the Republicans from government. If this happens, they warn us that America won't be able to export hamburgers and democracy to the rest of the world.
		
Click to expand...

*Very true.
 

*



			Now you've pissed the few people that you hadn't yet alienated. Please remember this: People don't mind being used, but they hate when you point it out.
		
Click to expand...

*LOL!!!
That's why I try to avoid this type of discussions, I don't like pissing people off, but I don't like hiding what I think either...


----------



## Kräuter_Fee

trelu9 said:


> No, you are misrepresenting what I said. Try to read it again more carefully.


Yes you are, but it's more fun to say you're not. Vince was refering to the reply you gave to Outsider, who had misinterpreted what I had said and apologized afterwards. Maybe you should start reading more carefully, then we can talk.




> Yes, I'm sure everyone already knows all that. Anything original to say?


 No, maybe you can enlighten us.



> My 14-year-old cousin is going through the same "Don't believe the mass-media lies/the government is just lying using us, man!/9-11 never happened, the moon landing was a hoax, blah blah" phase, I think you'd get along well with him.


 No doubt that some kids can be more intelligent than adults.
For your information... this is not something related to age. You'll find people of all ages who believe these theories, you'll see engineers and pilots saying what is supposed to have happened in the Pentagon is impossible.


----------



## mytwolangs

I have no doubt about the planes hitting the targets, that wold be far fetched to fake. 

Funny thing - Osama (supposedly) hit us, and we went after Saddam of all people. 

Reason americans don't talk much about all this is cause of some "patriot act" where they want to treat everyone like a terrorist.


----------



## ireney

Don't be so hard on Tony. He is simply doing his job. You need to understand that The Holy Order of the One and Only Truth and its current priests don't like competition. They have defined what the truth is and if you dare to even talk about alternative truths, well... you'll have to deal with their vitriolic criticism. Of course they can't back up their claims of univocal right to the truth but don't forget that all religions, even The Holy Order of the One and Only Truth, don't need to prove anything. It's an article of faith. 

Aha! Now I know what maxiogee is doing for a living! He opposes people who refuse to answer questions such as "what about the eye witnesses?" (Sorry Krauter_Fee you still have to answer this one though repeatedly asked) , who talk about how something is scientifically impossible without backing up their argument with solid facts the way scientists always do (read an scientific article/paper and you'll see what I mean) and to people who rage against labelling people while the do it themselves and use what seems to them as clever turns of phrases to criticise the 'others' when they don't produce a single evidence themselves.



Actually it's the sanest thing to do. Thirty-six percent of respondents overall said it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them "because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East." http://www.nypost.com/news/nationaln...tempel_iii.htm
People are starting to connect the dots. However, you'll still find many people that don't even want to discuss or consider alternative versions of history. I think that fear is the driving force behind their behavior. They don't want to piss off the gods and the priests. 

Excellent proof. Do you know that surveys done by telephone are not considered really the best for oh so many reasons? Where are the details of this survey? 
And on a personal note, I don't enjoy being called a lemming who is afraid to piss off the gods and the priests. Give me solid proof that this or that happened or even that this or that didn't happen (those two are not the same) and I will join you. Calling me names and making depreciating noises is not convincing

It just seems that we have to believe what we are told because if the most powerful people in the world say it it must be true. We aren't allowed to think, if you do you are branded as ignorant and naive.
I'm not skeptical because I feel like being different, I like reading the press, being informed and see way too many things that don't make sense, that's all.

What you say makes sense. But the priests of The Holy Order of the One and Only Truth don't like you to think critically. They want you to conform. They have zero tolerance to any type of deviation from the truth sanctioned from above. And if you don't conform, they will accuse you of being part of the conspiracy to remove the Republicans from government. If this happens, they warn us that America won't be able to export hamburgers and democracy to the rest of the world. 

I WANT the Republicans off the goverment and it's not even my country. 

And think for a moment... if everyone was skeptical maybe politicians wouldn't play with use like they do. They know that they can tell us almost anything because we will believe it and what's worse we won't do anything to prevent it. They are using us and yet there are people who defend them. 

Now you've pissed the few people that you hadn't yet alienated. Please remember this: People don't mind being used, but they hate when you point it out.

Hasn't anyone told you that generalising like this is a sure sign of bigotry? And not of the 'recovering' kind. Equating lack of belief to not-well supported conspiracy theories with believing everything that comes out of the politicians' mouth is so gross a logical fault that no person with a healthy and productive kind of scepticism would make.


----------



## GenJen54

Krauter Fee said:
			
		

> All I can tell you is that it's *technically impossible* that such a plane, at such a speed, with such a weight crashed against the Pentagon and left so little damage and didn't leave any rests of its tail. It's *impossible*.
> Any plane crash, at any height will leave the tail. For instance, when those two planes crashed in the air(one was a Russian plane full of children and the other was a DHL plane) at 90 degrees, at a very high speed (over 750kph) and the tails were on the ground after the crash.
> In the Pentagon you don't see that even though the crash in the Pentagon was *much lighter*.


And I can tell you that the technically "impossible" happens all the time in my state during tornado season when bottles of soda, vacuum sealed by the factory, become filled with dust and debris without any glass or plastic breaking, or lids being unsealed; when pieces of grass and straw become embedded in tree trunks and telephone poles, sticking out like arrows or piercing through 9 inch logs completely; when winds over 200 miles per hour rip through a home smashing everything in site, but leaving a china cabinet filled with fragile crystal and glass figurines completely untouched and perfect. There is no conspiracy there. It's an act of nature. Simple, violent, perfect in its *impossibility*.

Science, despite its many advantages, is not perfect. The "impossible" still happens all the time. All I know is that the black boxes from the plane were found, debris from a plane - including parts of landing gear and a fuselage, plus luggage - was found at the site, and several eye witnesses, including someone my husband knows, who worked there at the time, described a plane having hit the building.

It really besmirches the memory of the people who died that day - especially those on that plane - to think otherwise, especially no other evidence outside of what is speculatory, has been found.


----------



## .   1

GenJen54 said:


> And I can tell you that the technically "impossible" happens all the time in my state during tornado season when bottles of soda, vacuum sealed by the factory, become filled with dust and debris without any glass or plastic breaking, or lids being unsealed; when pieces of grass and straw become embedded in tree trunks and telephone poles, sticking out like arrows or piercing through 9 inch logs completely; when winds over 200 miles per hour rip through a home smashing everything in site, but leaving a china cabinet filled with fragile crystal and glass figurines completely untouched and perfect. There is no conspiracy there. It's an act of nature. Simple, violent, perfect in its *impossibility*.


I have watched many of the above observations demonstrated on the most excellent television show Mythbusters.  Using quite sound science they demonstrate that even playing cards become dangerous at relatively low velocities.

.,,


----------



## danielfranco

I wanted to comment that I was fortunate enough to read Elaine's post before she decided to withdraw it, and so I also wanted to thank her.


----------



## maxiogee

Kräuter_Fee said:


> Excuse me, but how can you say that?


I feel I gave detailed resoning for my comments. What more do you want?




> I'd rather say believing what you're told by politicians and by the media is more similar to religion than skepticism.


I did not say I believe everything I'm told by politicians. 

*This is a major plank of the argument used by conspiracy theorists… 
…Politicians lines in the XYZ case - therefore conspiracies exist.* 

I know (a) that politicians lie, and (b) some of the reasons they do so. That does not mean that I either condone the lies or approve of the reasons. But it doesn't mean that there are conspiracies with potent hidden agendas going on, or that these conspiracies reach such levels (depths) as are suggested by the theorists.




> Way too many things in 9/11 *life* make no sense.


A small correction.
Don't forget that, when dealing with people and their actions in a crisis that they are fallible, they are venal and they are weak. They also tend to try to cover up these facts.
I don't expect people in crises to be any more astute, brave, or insightful than I would be in a similar situation — and I can go to pieces in a crisis. I am hugely aware of that. Similarly I can know just the right thing to do and do it unthinkingly. I recently tendered first aid to someone who was in the process of what appeared to be a seizure, whilst others stood by and looked on. And some months ago I did something very similar when a woman, who turned out to be an epileptic, collapsed beside me.




> If we remember how many times the USA has lied and how popular it is to create unfounded panic just to control people... I don't think it's crazy not to believe what they say.


I accept that all countries are lied to - the USA is no exception, but I would query the subsequent assertion - How popular is it, I ask you, to create blind panic just to control people? I await your evidence with interest.

"Popular" — You make it sound as if those who would control us have a menu of options from which to choose - "Ah yes, I've always found the 'blind panic' good, I'll use that again" . Seriously, 'popular' would indicate that it is a common practice, so I expect plenty of instances




> It just seems that we _have_ to believe what we are told because if the most powerful people in the world say it it must be true.


That's probably the worst reason for believing anything. The most powerful people in the world used to seriously believe they were appointed by God to rule their nations. The most powerful people in the world used to believe that the earth was the centre of the universe!



> We aren't allowed to think, if you do you are branded as ignorant and naive.


Who does the branding?
That's not connected to conspiracy theory - that's herd instinct.



> I'm not skeptical because I feel like being different, I like reading the press, being informed and see way too many things that don't make sense, that's all.
> 
> And think for a moment... if everyone was skeptical maybe politicians wouldn't play with use like they do. They know that they can tell us almost anything because we will believe it and what's worse we won't do anything to prevent it. They are using us and yet there are people who defend them.



Scepticism doesn't necessarily entail believing in conspiracies - I'm a sceptic, and a cynic who requires proof and evidence before accepting many things. 
The answer to your problem lies in convincing youur fellow citizens, not of conspiracies, but of the venality, shallowness and weakness of your leaders. That should be easy to do, there is plenty of evidence.

Why seek to prove what you would have us believe the offenders have hidden the evidence of — that sounds like a hard task?

======

Suppose it was proved overnight, with irrefutable evidence, that JFK was killed by the Qwerties, a powerful organisation which profited greatly by his death - what would happen?


----------



## Kräuter_Fee

> Physics.
> The Pentagon was far more massive than the plane and the Pentagon did not move or disintergrate, The mid air collison would not have been a 'mirror collision' in which each part of one plane hit the opposite part of the other plane but with the Pentagon this was not an issue. All of the plane hit the Pentagon and Newtonian Physics dictated the rest.


 Exactly for that reason, that the Pentagon didn't move, the tail should be there. Let me tell you one thing, in plane crashes, the tail is *always* there (unless a plane crashes against another plane's tail, which is not the case here).



> And I can tell you that the technically "impossible" happens all the time in my state during tornado season when bottles of soda, vacuum sealed by the factory, become filled with dust and debris without any glass or plastic breaking, or lids being unsealed; when pieces of grass and straw become embedded in tree trunks and telephone poles, sticking out like arrows or piercing through 9 inch logs completely; when winds over 200 miles per hour rip through a home smashing everything in site, but leaving a china cabinet filled with fragile crystal and glass figurines completely untouched and perfect. There is no conspiracy there. It's an act of nature. Simple, violent, perfect in its *impossibility*.


 Then, it's not impossible. Microparticles can go through crystal, cans, skin...
Anyway, sorry but this doesn't prove anything. What does one thing have to do with the other? I've said this twenty times already and I'll say it again. There's no plane crash where the tail is not left.

Maybe 9/11 was an alien's action since too many things don't make sense:
1. The Pentagon plane, where is the tail?
2. Both towers fell vertically, how strange... without any explosion in the building? Ummm... engineers say it's impossible.

As for the debris and luggage left in the place... it was probably easy to put it there afterwards. Now, bringing the tail of a Boeing 757 would have been quite harder. And believing that it disappeared miracoulously is an act of faith.



> It really besmirches the memory of the people who died that day - especially those on that plane - to think otherwise, especially no other evidence outside of what is speculatory, has been found.


 It really besmirches the memory of the victims of the US massacres in Afghanistan and Iraq when the US government justifies this attacks because of the 9/11 attack. They all are victims too.

As for eyewitnesses, did they see a plane... or did they see a Boeing-757??? Because from what I've read (and now you'll tell me what I read doesn't count, ok, I know, only what you see and think counts) people who saw it don't describe it as a Boeing-757, it might have been a military aircraft.


----------



## Outsider

Kräuter_Fee said:


> Exactly for that reason, that the Pentagon didn't move, the tail should be there. Let me tell you one thing, in plane crashes, the tail is *always* there (unless a plane crashes against another plane's tail, which is not the case here).
> 
> Then, it's not impossible. Microparticles can go through crystal, cans, skin...
> Anyway, sorry but this doesn't prove anything. What does one thing have to do with the other? I've said this twenty times already and I'll say it again. There's no plane crash where the tail is not left.


I don't remember seeing a tail in either of the Twin Towers...


----------



## Outsider

Here's a real life conspiracy:



> A federal judge on Thursday found the major cigarette makers guilty of civil fraud and racketeering, saying the government had proved their participation in a decades-long conspiracy to deceive the public about the risks of smoking in order to sustain their profits.
> 
> LA Times


----------



## Everness

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Kräuter_Fee
> I don't believe the man went to the Moon.
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> .,,



Let me turn the question around. Why do *you *believe that man ever went to the moon? How did *you *reach that conclusion? How do *you *know it actually happened and that it wasn't the ultimate camera trick? What type of independent research did *you *conduct? How do *you *know that you weren't tricked into believing that man went to the moon? Why do *you *believe what you believe? 

One thing I'm sure: You don't belong to *The Holy Order of the One and Only Truth*.


----------



## Everness

trelu9 said:


> Nothing you've said is shocking, in fact it's mind-numbingly trite and predictable.
> My 14-year-old cousin is going through the same "Don't believe the mass-media lies/the government is just lying using us, man!/9-11 never happened, the moon landing was a hoax, blah blah" phase, I think you'd get along well with him.



And I think you should spend more time with your 14-year-old cousin. Children at that age --and younger-- haven't yet been completely socialized into and domesticated by their cultural environment and have a healthy critical outlook on life in general. They are natural iconoclasts! Hanging out with them and dialoguing with them can somewhat slow down the unavoidable process of becoming part of the mass culture that screams for conformity and frowns upon outliers. Yes, I know... you didn't ask for my opinion!


----------



## maxiogee

Kräuter_Fee said:


> Let me tell you one thing, in plane crashes, the tail is *always* there.


What is your professional qualification which allows you to make such an assertion?



> Anyway, sorry but this doesn't prove anything. What does one thing have to do with the other? I've said this twenty times already and I'll say it again. There's no plane crash where the tail is not left.


Please provide proof of this assertion. Not one plane crash - ever - where the tail disintegrated? Or was just never found?




> Maybe 9/11 was an alien's action since too many things don't make sense:
> 1. The Pentagon plane, where is the tail?
> 2. Both towers fell vertically, how strange... without any explosion in the building? Ummm... engineers say it's impossible.


Engineers walk in to courts across the world, every day, as expert witnesses, and appear for opposite sides and refute each other's evidence.

As for their being no explosion — pardon me, but what was the fireball of flame and the subsequent smoke if they weren't evidence of an explosion?

And please, leave the aliens out of it.


----------



## ElaineG

> And please, leave the aliens out of it.


 
The aliens have their feelings hurt now, Tony.  

All these years they've been suffering in seclusion in Roswell and trying to get a little attention by "taking" random Americans (they're obsessed with Americans for some reason) and probing them anally, which they really don't like to do, but they keep hoping that it will get the Americans upset enough to complain, and despite all their efforts, the mainstream just ignores their existence.

So, they finally learn how to destroy the Twin Towers and part of the Pentagon.  Our moment in the sun, they say, we'll finally get the recognition we deserve!  No more disgusting anal probes.  And what happens?  The evil New World Order Council of Foreign Relations Masons Illuminati U.S. Government brainwashes the people of the Northeastern United States into believing that they have witnessed and experienced a terrorist attack carried out using planes as weapons.  Al Qaeda ends up with all the credit.

The aliens are devastated.  They have to go back to toiling in the relative obscurity of probing, drawing crop circles and cluttering up Scientologists' brains.  It's boring work.  They're thinking of giving up on Earth altogether.

But all hope is not lost.  Somewhere in Spain, a young woman hears their call.  She understands.  She seeks to spread light using the beacon that is WRF.  Finally, these poor misunderstood creatures -- caricatured by everyone from Bugs Bunny to South Park -- will be recognized, understood, taken _seriously_.

And then what happens?  You, Tony, tool that you are of the One True Religion or whatever Everless calls it, say "leave the aliens out of it."

Some people never learn.


----------



## maxiogee

My apologies, ElaineG, but one of the voices in my head told me what to write.

BTW
What are we to make of a Mod who's name is an anagram of "e.g. Alien"?


----------



## GenJen54

ElaineG said:
			
		

> "taking" random Americans (they're obsessed with Americans for some reason) and probing them anally, which they really don't like to do, but they keep hoping that it will get the Americans upset enough to complain, and despite all their efforts, the mainstream just ignores their existence.


Yes, and remember, they only take us at night, when we're sleeping. Darn those aliens. I guess our non global-warming planet is too hot for them during the day time, so they only manage to abduct us in our sleep. And don't forget the mindchips! That's how they all got us to believe that the OKC Bombing, 9/11 and even the May, 11, 2006 Valujet Plane crash in Miami - where NO EVIDENCE OF A PLANE WAS FOUND (it hit the ground so hard it was smashed into bits of confetti and was sucked up by the swamps) - were all just great conspiracies. I get it now. Good thing, too. It was starting to keep me up at night! Oh wait, maybe it was the aliens that were doing that.


----------



## stephyjh

Kräuter_Fee said:


> Exactly for that reason, that the Pentagon didn't move, the tail should be there. Let me tell you one thing, in plane crashes, the tail is *always* there (unless a plane crashes against another plane's tail, which is not the case here).
> 
> Then, it's not impossible. Microparticles can go through crystal, cans, skin...
> Anyway, sorry but this doesn't prove anything. What does one thing have to do with the other? I've said this twenty times already and I'll say it again. There's no plane crash where the tail is not left.
> 
> Maybe 9/11 was an alien's action since too many things don't make sense:
> 1. The Pentagon plane, where is the tail?
> 2. Both towers fell vertically, how strange... without any explosion in the building? Ummm... engineers say it's impossible.
> 
> As for the debris and luggage left in the place... it was probably easy to put it there afterwards. Now, bringing the tail of a Boeing 757 would have been quite harder. And believing that it disappeared miracoulously is an act of faith.
> 
> It really besmirches the memory of the victims of the US massacres in Afghanistan and Iraq when the US government justifies this attacks because of the 9/11 attack. They all are victims too.


Honestly. Do you have any qualifications to make these statements, or are they all just based on your rabid political agenda? And I'm with Tony on the "leave the aliens out of it" bit. Somehow conspiracy theorists always come back around to the aliens. This is becoming so incredibly absurd.


----------



## ElaineG

> BTW
> What are we to make of a Mod who's name is an anagram of "e.g. Alien"?


 
You didn't know Jen's new avatar was actually a picture of me, did you?  Aliens have been disguising themselves as pandas for years.  It's a good way to infiltrate the hearts and minds of the American people (for some darn reason, those probes just don't seem to be winning them over).



> That's how they all got us to believe that the OKC Bombing, 9/11 and even the May, 11, 2006 Valujet Plane crash in Miami - where NO EVIDENCE OF A PLANE WAS FOUND (it hit the ground so hard it was smashed into bits of confetti and was sucked up by the swamps) - were all just great conspiracies.


 
Don't forget TWA Flight 800.  Come to think of it, the aviation industry should be pretty proud of itself.  I can't think of a single plane that _didn't_ crash as a result of a conspiracy, alien or governmental.  That's a pretty excellent safety record!


----------



## LV4-26

Mm, I guess time has come now to tell you that Kräuter-Fee's sentence  _Maybe 9/11 was an alien's action_ was ironical. I just can't believe you thought she was serious (or did you?)
Just a reminder of her post #46 :


			
				Kräuter_Fee said:
			
		

> I believe all this (Al-Qaeda, the attacks) is a creation made in America. What is Al-Qaeda? Where does it come from? Saudi Arabia... sure, but who is behind that? Who's Bin Laden's family? I believe the USA is behind it all.


I resent having to say that as I had such a good laugh reading Elaine's post about the Aliens. 
(you know how much I feel concerned when it comes to that topic  ).


----------



## maxiogee

ElaineG said:


> You didn't know Jen's new avatar was actually a picture of me, did you?  Aliens have been disguising themselves as pandas for years.  It's a good way to infiltrate the hearts and minds of the American people (for some darn reason, those probes just don't seem to be winning them over).


If I didn't know better (How often my mother begged me to know better!), I'd say that an _agent provocateur_ was tempting us to bring this thread so far off-topic as to get it locked. But thinking like that is a pre-requisite for believing in conspiracies, so maybe this is on-topic. But, if there is a conspiracy, then this thread has just revealed it and we will see this thread deleted in short order.


----------



## ElaineG

> I guess time has come now to tell you that Kräuter-Fee's sentence _Maybe 9/11 was an alien's action_ was ironical.


 
Given the content of her other posts, I'm ready to believe that she believes anything. It's not like aliens makes _less sense_ than the other stuff she's said.



> I'd say that an _agent provocateur_ was tempting us to bring this thread so far off-topic as to get it locked.


 
I don't think my statement about pandas was any more nonsensical or farfetched than the posts that kicked off this discussion.  And I mean that in all seriousness.


----------



## .   1

Everness said:


> Let me turn the question around. Why do *you *believe that man ever went to the moon? How did *you *reach that conclusion? How do *you *know it actually happened and that it wasn't the ultimate camera trick? What type of independent research did *you *conduct? How do *you *know that you weren't tricked into believing that man went to the moon? Why do *you *believe what you believe?
> 
> One thing I'm sure: You don't belong to *The Holy Order of the One and Only Truth*.


I was in school and the first moon landing was a huge event in Australia because of the radio telescope at Parkes.
We followed all the science in Physics and discussed the topic for years at school.
I submitted many projects and papers to my teachers over the years and received logical feed-back about the moon landings.
The science in the moon landings is pure and logical.

I am aware of the extreme difficulty in obtaining anything like a vacuum in a large chamber and the concept that an entire sound stage was evacuated to allow for the photos to be taken as though on the moon is beyond comprehension.

I have never read one single piece of credible evidence that the moon landing was faked.

The only excuse I have ever seen for the faking of the moon landings was to beat the Russians.  Does anybody have any idea as to why the Russians did not expose the fake at the time that they were actively reaching for the moon themselves and would have been in a perfect position to utterly destroy the credibility of the U.S. American administration at the height of the Cold War?

With any due respect what the hell is *The Holy Order of the One and Only Truth* and how do you know that I am not the Pope of *The Holy Order of the One and Only Truth*?

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

. said:


> With any due respect what the hell is *The Holy Order of the One and Only Truth* and how do you know that I am not the Pope of *The Holy Order of the One and Only Truth*?



I don't know, but I believe I was excommunicated — _in absentia_ — not too long ago. It seemed that I offended them when I asked it to prove it exists. I think sending me a PM is a heinous sin. 
I think I'm due to be burnt in effigy soon.


----------



## stephyjh

LV4-26 said:


> Mm, I guess time has come now to tell you that Kräuter-Fee's sentence _Maybe 9/11 was an alien's action_ was ironical.


As a volunteer firefighter, those were my brothers that went into that burning building, knowing they were going to their deaths. I don't care if the comment was intended as irony or if someone really has gone off the deep end. But don't take a tragedy that resulted in the deaths of thousands and twist it to fit crackpot theories.


----------



## .   1

stephyjh said:


> As a volunteer firefighter, those were my brothers that went into that burning building, knowing they were going to their deaths. I don't care if the comment was intended as irony or if someone really has gone off the deep end. But don't take a tragedy that resulted in the deaths of thousands and twist it to fit crackpot theories.


I am relieved that I am not able to say this better than you have just done.
Some things are just not appropriate to make smart alec cracks about.
Real death and tragedy are not subjects for flippancy.

.,,


----------



## LV4-26

. said:


> Some things are just not appropriate to make smart alec* cracks* about.
> Real death and tragedy are not subjects for *flippancy.
> *  .,,


Sorry, I've just looked up the word "ironical" in the dictionary and it seems I misused it. I've got so many things yet to learn in English. By _ironical_ I did not mean humorous at all. What I meant she meant was.....oh forget it, she'll explain herself if she likes.

By the way,* I *am *not* a believer in conspiracy theories. I just wanted to put the record straight. That'll teach me.


----------



## Kräuter_Fee

The comment on the aliens was ironic. No wonder why you can't suspect that maybe what you see on tv could be fake... if you can't even get an *irony*...  sorry, I will be more direct next time since ironies are too hard to understand.




			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> What is your professional qualification which allows you to make such an assertion?



None, but I've talked to pilots about this topic and I think they know more than you too, although you're very smart of course (although not enought o get an irony, lol!)




			
				LV4-26 said:
			
		

> Mm, I guess time has come now to tell you that Kräuter-Fee's sentence  _Maybe 9/11 was an alien's action_ was ironical. I just can't believe you thought she was serious (or did you?)


Thanks LV4-26, yes, it was ironical. Unfortunately these people take _everything_ seriously.This is a proof of it 

Well, the question was: "Do you believe in conspiracy theories?" My answer was "yes". I'm out of this.

PS: And since this is a languages forum, please have a review on figures of speech, I know they're hard to get but well maybe this can help you: http://www.nipissingu.ca/faculty/williams/figofspe.htm


----------



## Outsider

Here's an interesting site:



> If we’ve an overall message here, it’s check things for yourself. Don’t trust a site just because it’s telling you what you want to believe. Don’t believe us without evaluating our arguments and checking the references we provide, either (we’re as likely to make mistakes as anyone else). Look into the claims yourself, discover both sides of the argument, and make your own mind up. The truth deserves nothing less.
> 
> 9/11 Myths


----------



## stephyjh

Kräuter_Fee said:


> The comment on the aliens was ironic. No wonder why you can't suspect that maybe what you see on tv could be fake... if you can't even get an *irony*...  sorry, I will be more direct next time since ironies are too hard to understand.
> 
> I didn't question that it was ironic. I just think it's inappropriate, even disgraceful, to make light of the deaths of thousands for the sake of your silly conspiracy theories.
> 
> 
> None, but I've talked to pilots about this topic and I think they know more than you too, although you're very smart of course
> 
> I hate to break it to you, but all a pilot (who is trained to fly the plane, not to analyze a crash site) can offer is an educated guess. Without being there and seeing the actual site immediately after the crash, it's impossible to determine exactly what happened.


----------



## ireney

Well, I think we've focused in just one of the conspiracy theories. I'm not saying it's wrong per se but 
a) it's not what this thread is supposed to be about (it's supposed to be more general in it's outlook)
b) it's not going to get us anywhere. 

To my mind, people who believe in conspiracy theories in general (and not _a_ particular conspiracy theory) have i. selective scepticism (official sources are 'lies' by default, 'alternative' sources are ok by default) ii. arrognatly looking down to everyone else who, as they see it, hasn't seen the light of truth yet and is therefore a lemming.

Now, to get back to the more general "do you believe in conspiracy theories" theme;

I have found some conspiracy theories in the following sites (some are repeated in more than one). I don't believe in any of them. Do you?

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/
http://www.theinsider.org/
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/stalinsky200405060835.asp
http://www.2spare.com/item_43133.aspx


----------



## geve

ElaineG said:


> Given the content of her other posts, I'm ready to believe that she believes anything.


I think you're a bit hard with her... I would rephrase your sentence a tad: 
"she believes anything *that is not in the mainstream medias*."



ElaineG said:


> Don't forget TWA Flight 800. Come to think of it, the aviation industry should be pretty proud of itself. I can't think of a single plane that _didn't_ crash as a result of a conspiracy, alien or governmental. That's a pretty excellent safety record!


How do you know that planes exist _at all_?? 
What? Are you saying you went on one? Well, that's what you think. Remember that you can't trust what your eyes and ears and guts tell you. Nothing exist for certain outside of your mind!


I find it a reasonable approach to life to not take everything for granted and raise questions when you think it ought to be raised. 
Now, even if systematically questioning everything that is put before our eyes is a method that we're taught in philosophy classes in high school, many of us silly students didn't bother to apply it to everyday life... but I can understand that people who follow this principle find it hard to discuss with the average down-to-earth human beings. 
However, it is one thing to question things that are presented as facts; and another to think that it's all part of a gigantic plot against the human race (or another group that you're part of and think it's aimed at). One thing to be skeptical about the information you get and another to believe in conspiracy theories.


----------



## cuchuflete

The notion that any large government is capable of a well designed, well executed conspiracy makes me giggle. Let's take an obvious example, dear to the heart of Everness. Iraq. If the ineptitude demonstrated there, with hundreds of thousands of troops and weapons, and billions of dollars, is a sign of what that organization is able to do when it tries really hard......   The idea that the same organization could shoot a missile at the pentagon and actually hit the intended target is too ridiculous for words.

I don't trust much of what government people tell us.  I have no reason to trust theories posted by self-interested internet publishers any more or less.  An web site that says that an airplane fuselage is like the body of an automobile should be ignored for its ignorance and stupidity.  Try comparing steel frames with aluminum and titanium for a start.  Try comparing the relative density and weight per cubic measure next.  Try not to laugh too hard.  If you want to believe nonsense, that is your right and privilege, whether it is published by a government or by another source of dubious reliability.


----------



## Everness

maxiogee said:


> And please, leave the aliens out of it.



Tony, in America you can't leave the aliens out of it. Didn't you read the article I posted? 

38% of individuals (113,828,305 Americans give or take) believe that it's likely that "The federal government is withholding proof of the existence of intelligent life from others planets."  
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/12765

Actually, and according to other polls, ElaineB is in the minority when it comes to the significance of aliens in the American mind.



60 percent of those surveyed believe extraterrestrial life exists on other planets

Of those who believed, most agreed that they would be “excited and hopeful” upon learning of the discovery of extraterrestrial life while 90 percent of them said Earth should reply to any message from another planet

About eight of 10 Americans believe it is likely that intelligent aliens on other planets are more advanced than humans

Democrats and Republicans were equally likely to believe in life on other planets, while regular churchgoers were less likely to believe in extraterrestrial life (about 46 percent) than non-churchgoers (about 70 percent)
 http://www.space.com/news/050531_alienlife_survey.html

Are aliens behind terrorist attacks? I hope they aren't. However, every time I watch Bush smirk, grimace or make strange faces on TV while trying to figure out what the heck he wants to say, I can't help wondering if extraterrestials have already taken over the White House...


----------



## GenJen54

Everness said:
			
		

> I hope they aren't. However, every time I watch Bush smirk, grimace or make strange faces on TV while trying to figure out what the heck he wants to say, I can't help wondering if extraterrestials have already taken over the White House...


That's a conspiracy, I think, we might all find some belief in!


----------



## geve

Sure, but aren't these two things contradictory?


Everness said:


> About eight of 10 Americans believe it is likely that intelligent aliens on other planets are more advanced than humans





Everness said:


> However, every time I watch Bush smirk, grimace or make strange faces on TV while trying to figure out what the heck he wants to say, I can't help wondering if extraterrestials have already taken over the White House...


----------



## maxiogee

Everness said:


> Tony, in America you can't leave the aliens out of it. Didn't you read the article I posted?


I don't remember you posting an article. Was that before or after you were deliberately rude about me?




Everness said:


> 38% of individuals (113,828,305 Americans give or take) believe that it's likely that "The federal government is withholding proof of the existence of intelligent life from others planets."
> http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/12765



Oh, you mean you posted a _link_, there's a difference between a link and an article.
I don't have a very high opinion of the links you post.
They have a habit of causing pop-up windows to open on my computer.

However - who are this Angus Reid Consultants? 
I notice that they just round up other people's research - "We are not research suppliers". 
They don't source the information they quote, and they don't cite the methodology used to acquire that information. 
Nor do they tell us much about themselves - the biggest name they can cite as a subscriber to their "Global Scan" is a Mexican newspaper. 
Now I have nothing against Mexican newspapers, but ought not "a partnership dedicated to understanding public opinion in North America" be able to offer a client name which is US based?

In his play _The Merchant of Venice_, *Shakespeare* has my namesake say…
ANTONIO:.............Mark you this, Bassanio,
The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.

… well nowadays the devil can cite opinion polls for his purpose, and anyone with a point to make can find websites to back their views.


----------



## .   1

I believe that life exists on other planets.
I believe that it is possible that such life has developed self awareness.
I believe that it is possible that such life is less intelligent than us.
I believe that it is equally possible that such life is more intelligent than us.
I believe that it is possible that such life has developed the ability to leave the biosphere of their planet and explore their own solar system.
I believe that the laws of Physics are immutable.
I believe that faster than light travel is utterly impossible.
I believe that interstellar distances are so vast that travel between the stars is impossible.
I believe that even communication between the stars is impossible on any real scale other than sending dead messages that take centuries to cross the gulf and further centuries to come back.
They are out there and we are in here and never the twain shall meet.

.,,


----------



## Everness

maxiogee said:


> I don't remember you posting an article. Was that before or after you were deliberately rude about me?



C'mon Tony, you know that I'm very fond of you (but please don't ask me to be your mate, ok). But you must acknowledge that you pulled a fast one on Kräuter_Fee when you came up with the religion/priesthood B.S. However, I must also acknowledge that your following posts changed for the best. 

By the way, I think that Kräuter_Fee did a great job getting her point across. In the process, she pushed people's buttons big time. The emotional tone of some of the responses was pretty high. If you reread the thread, you'll realize that she had very few allies and some people went overboard on the attacks. It wasn't clear if they were attacking her arguments or attacking her. Some appealed to ridicule, etc. etc. but she stood her ground. I was quite impressed. I can't find the post but I'm sure that there was an attempt to stop her from sharing her thoughts by invoking the memory of the victims of 9/11. That's exactly what this administration does when someone suggests that we should get the hell out of Iraq right now. "This would mean that 2609 US soldiers (and counting) died in vain" and that type of B.S. We use the memory of the dead when we ran out of arguments or because we can't understand and respect the right that other people have to think differently than us or reach different conclusions with the same evidence on the most sensitive or prickly issues. If someone finds a topic like this one too emotional or that it hits home, he/she should refrain from participating. Those who live in the US (and in many other countries) have the right and privilege to speak their minds. And yes, they have the right and privilege to believe in any and all conspiracy theories. 

But as I always say, there's so much beating people can take and unfortunately Kräuter_Fee stopped contributing to this thread.


----------



## maxiogee

Everness said:


> C'mon Tony, you know that I'm very fond of you


I know no such thing, and have seen precious little evidence.



> But you must acknowledge that you pulled a fast one on Kräuter_Fee when you came up with the religion/priesthood B.S.


Maybe you think I "must" do acknowledge, I don't, and I deny pulling "a fast one" (used about swindling people, and I fail to see the relevance) — I stand by what I said…

Conspiracy theories share much in common with religion…
One needs to suspend belief in what is deemed possible and believe in something which seems impossible;
Outsiders who attempt to prove the falsity of the proposition are derided as being unenlightened;
There is a priesthood - the ones who propagate these theories are seen as having access to arcane wisdom.
There is a great peril threatening - and those who do not believe will somehow assist this peril to come to pass.​



> The emotional tone of some of the responses was pretty high. If you reread the thread, you'll realize that she had very few allies and some people went overboard on the attacks.


That people here go overboard is beyond question.



> Some appealed to ridicule, etc. etc.


It is a ridiculous subject.




> But as I always say, there's so much beating people can take and unfortunately Kräuter_Fee stopped contributing to this thread.


That anyone stops contributing to these fora saddens me. That they stop contributing twaddle doesn't.

I cannot help but wonder if Krauter Fee's absence is an mechanism to avoid answering some simple questions I asked.



maxiogee said:


> Please provide proof of this assertion. Not one plane crash - ever - where the tail disintegrated? Or was just never found?


Kräuter_Fee claimed "I have talked to pilots" as the soirce for the assertion about plane tails - pilots are not the best source, they don't tend to survive crashes, the people to speak to are air crash investigators! My query about proof that the tail 'never' survives went unanswered.

I also asked


maxiogee said:


> As for their being no explosion — pardon me, but what was the fireball of flame and the subsequent smoke if they weren't evidence of an explosion?


But received no answer.

And finally, I commented


> And please, leave the aliens out of it.


and was accused of not recognising irony - what does Kräuter_Fee need as evidence of my understanding it? The winking smiley wasn't enough evidence? Must I literally acknowledge that I understood it.


----------



## Outsider

maxiogee said:


> My query about proof that the tail 'never' survives went unanswered.


As did mine (though it was admittedly more indirect).

On the other hand, Everness' initial questions were quite plain (I guess; I've noticed that he likes to be vague in his questions, possibly to spark discussion/controversy). He asked "*Do you believe* in conspiracy theories?", and "Are conspiracy theories *popular in your country* or is this mostly an American phenomenon?" 

I guess we could have stuck to the thread's topic more strictly. Those who accept conspiracy theories seem to have no desire to discuss them, anyway.


----------



## Kräuter_Fee

Everness said:


> C'mon Tony, you know that I'm very fond of you (but please don't ask me to be your mate, ok). But you must acknowledge that you pulled a fast one on Kräuter_Fee when you came up with the religion/priesthood B.S. However, I must also acknowledge that your following posts changed for the best.


Thank you Everness 

And Maxiogee, sorry if Everness offended you, but you weren't nice to me either. Are you allowed to be rude to me while others can't be rude to you?



> By the way, I think that Kräuter_Fee did a great job getting her point across. In the process, she pushed people's buttons big time. The emotional tone of some of the responses was pretty high. If you reread the thread, you'll realize that she had very few allies and some people went overboard on the attacks. It wasn't clear if they were attacking her arguments or attacking her. Some appealed to ridicule, etc. etc. but she stood her ground. I was quite impressed. I can't find the post but I'm sure that there was an attempt to stop her from sharing her thoughts by invoking the memory of the victims of 9/11. That's exactly what this administration does when someone suggests that we should get the hell out of Iraq right now. "This would mean that 2609 US soldiers (and counting) died in vain" and that type of B.S. We use the memory of the dead when we ran out of arguments or because we can't understand and respect the right that other people have to think differently than us or reach different conclusions with the same evidence on the most sensitive or prickly issues. If someone finds a topic like this one too emotional or that it hits home, he/she should refrain from participating. Those who live in the US (and in many other countries) have the right and privilege to speak their minds. And yes, they have the right and privilege to believe in any and all conspiracy theories.


 That's true, in fact, I'd like to comment something... I've discussed this with people before (not over the Internet) and they either agree or disagree, but the reactions I saw here were quite different. I wonder why... 
Why is it "ridiculous" to doubt about the official "truth"? I honestly don't understand it  in the Middle Ages it was ridiculous to doubt about what priests said, God and all those things, now it's ridiculous to doubt about those things politicians say (anyone sees a pattern?)



> But as I always say, there's so much beating people can take and unfortunately Kräuter_Fee stopped contributing to this thread.


 I thought it was the best I could do. I gave my point of view, people hated it... not that I care, but it wasn't taking us anywhere (although I was having fun )



			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> Kräuter_Fee claimed "I have talked to pilots" as the soirce for the assertion about plane tails - pilots are not the best source, they don't tend to survive crashes, the people to speak to are air crash investigators! My query about proof that the tail 'never' survives went unanswered.


LOL this is the funniest thing I've heard today... so because pilots usually don't survive crashes, they don't know if there should be a tail there or not...  riiiiiight, okaaay, cool reasoning.
And Max... If I didn't answer your questions directly it's because I've already answered indirectly. I've already said all I had in my mind, that's all. 
You guys aren't interviewing me, are you? Because I stated many questions and I didn't get many answers (you prefered to quote my ironies and answer them instead of answering the real questions), why you avoid them? I don't know, maybe because you don't know what to say?

By the way, what I call ridiculous is to believe in Bin Laden's videos, those are funny, I have to admit. The "best" one was that video where he was telling a friend how the planes crashed...


----------



## LV4-26

Kräuter_Fee said:


> Why is it "ridiculous" to *doubt* about the official "truth"? I honestly don't understand it


OK, now we might be able to start the whole thread all over again ("please, noooooo"  ) and maybe come to some sort of agreement. 
I think it is clear to everybody that... :


> I don't believe one thing about what I've heard about 9/11,


...goes a little further than just "doubt". 
At least that's how it sounds to me.


----------



## Outsider

Kräuter_Fee said:


> [...] in fact, I'd like to comment something... I've discussed this with people before (not over the Internet) and they either agree or disagree, but the reactions I saw here were quite different. I wonder why...


Had you ever discussed it with Americans before? With Americans who might have witnessed the attacks, or lost loved ones to them?...

To those people, denying the events of 9/11 must sound like denying the Holcaust to a survivor of Nazi concentration camps.


----------



## GenJen54

Krauter Fëe said:
			
		

> now it's ridiculous to doubt about those things politicians say (anyone sees a pattern?)


No one is ridiculing you for doubting what the _*politicians*_ say. I doubt what many of them say every day. The spin doctors are constantly at work, and the some of the tales they spin daily are borderline absurd.

But when you refuse to believe, or even lend any credance, to eye-witness and first-hand accounts as brought to you directly by people known to us - dismissing it with "well, sorry about your friend but I just can't explain that" - that's when we start rolling our eyes. Who do you think _*we*_ are apt to believe? People we know who were "there" when these incidents occurred - and in one case in her final moments reported what was happening? Or, someone unknown to us, many thousands of miles away, who was not there, and who has thus far provided very weak evidence to support her case?

When one day, such terrorism touches you or the town you live in personally (perhaps it already has), then perhaps you will learn to trust those who have been through this type of violence more than you trust fringe journalists with an agenda.


----------



## maxiogee

Kräuter_Fee said:


> And Maxiogee, sorry if Everness offended you, but you weren't nice to me either. Are you allowed to be rude to me while others can't be rude to you?


Is it rude to say 
"What Krauter Fee evinces is not a healthy scepticism 
- but rather a naiveté bordering on that of religious adherents 
who do not question their priesthood's pronouncements."? 
That's *all* I said about you.
Do forer@s now apologise for other forer@s here? 
I've never seen that before. How odd.




> in the Middle Ages it was ridiculous to doubt about what priests said, God and all those things, now it's ridiculous to doubt about those things politicians say (anyone sees a pattern?)


A similarity, but not a pattern. In the Middle Ages, those who doubted what priests and monarchs said usually had evidence to back them, and they argued their case with reason and proof.




> LOL this is the funniest thing I've heard today... so because pilots usually don't survive crashes, they don't know if there should be a tail there or not...


Ask your pilots this then — how many crash sites have they inspected personally? 
Goodness knows it's easy for you to laugh, but what actual (i.e. existing in fact) experience of the behaviour of tails in crashes have they got? 
You already indicated that you have none - have they any more than you? 
On what basis do they claim to know whereof they speak?
(As Wittgenstein incisively said, Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent.)




> You guys aren't interviewing me, are you? Because I stated many questions and I didn't get many answers (you prefered to quote my ironies and answer them instead of answering the real questions), why you avoid them? I don't know, maybe because you don't know what to say?


Perhaps you weren't answered because people here don't have the answers to the questions you pose - has that occurred to you? 
*You* definitely have the answers to the ones we posed you.


----------



## Everness

Outsider said:


> Had you ever discussed it with Americans before? With Americans who might have witnessed the attacks, or lost loved ones to them?...
> 
> To those people, denying the events of 9/11 must sound like denying the Holcaust to a survivor of Nazi concentration camps.



Thank you for bringing this to my attention. That's the other hot topic that people bring up to avoid hearty and open discussions: the Holocaust denial business and Mel's dad. So we come up with the 11th commandment: "Thou shall not discuss or put in doubt the historicity of the Holocaust because it can upset the survivors or relatives of the victims of the Holocaust." The worse thing one can do is to allow topics to become taboos. Why? Because taboos die hard. 

Let's discuss the facts, engage in a debate, and let people reach their own conclusions. If people continue to believe that the Holocaust didn't happen or that the White House orchestrated 9/11, well, you have at least two options. First, criminalize that behavior. This is what several European countries did with Holocaust deniers. I see it as an extremely and ineffective path to take and something that will never happen in the US. Second, respect the right that people have to think whatever they want to think even if their ideas make you puke. But if you feel extremely uncomfortable discussing 9/11 conspiracy theories because you lost a loved one in 9/11 or in the gas chambers of Auschwitz, just don't participate in the discussion. It's a good way of taking care of yourself while making sure that the 1st. Ammendment of the Bill of Rights isn't violated.


----------



## Outsider

Everness said:


> Let's discuss the facts, engage in a debate, and let people reach their own conclusions.


I thought your thread was about what people believe, not about the facts.


----------



## Everness

Outsider said:


> I thought your thread was about what people believe, not about the facts.



We all believe in facts but we disagree on what facts we believe in. But in this thread some people are saying 1) that some facts are more factual than other facts and 2) that not only we should all believe in them but, most importantly, we shouldn't question them. Define religion...


----------



## Outsider

That's an interesting redefinition of "fact". In this neck of the woods, facts aren't supposed to depend on one's opinion.


----------



## gotitadeleche

Kräuter_Fee said:


> All I can tell you is that it's *technically impossible* that such a plane, at such a speed, with such a weight crashed against the Pentagon and left so little damage and didn't leave any rests of its tail. It's *impossible*.
> Any plane crash, at any height will leave the tail. For instance, when those two planes crashed in the air(one was a Russian plane full of children and the other was a DHL plane) at 90 degrees, at a very high speed (over 750kph) and the tails were on the ground after the crash.
> In the Pentagon you don't see that even though the crash in the Pentagon was *much lighter*.
> 
> Now tell me... how do you explain that???




Kräuter_Fee,

I have a friend who is not only a pilot but a pilot instructor, and has written books about training pilot instructors to teach pilots to fly. Part of his research has been in the area of aviation safety, so he has read quite a lot about airplane crashes. I asked him last night about your comments about the tail remaining intact. He says tails DON'T ALWAYS survive the crash. There are several circumstances that can affect whether the tails survives, one of them being the position of the plane relative to the surface that it impacts with. 

Did you read the link that GenJen provided in her post #10? It had a very detailed explanation of the crash site and why more damage wasn't done, and answers to your contention that the height of the plane would have left a larger hole.


----------



## maxiogee

Everness said:


> So we come up with the 11th commandment: "Thou shall not discuss or put in doubt the historicity of the Holocaust because it can upset the survivors or relatives of the victims of the Holocaust." The worse thing one can do is to allow topics to become taboos. Why? Because taboos die hard.
> 
> Let's discuss the facts, engage in a debate, and let people reach their own conclusions. If people continue to believe that the Holocaust didn't happen or that the White House orchestrated 9/11, well, you have at least two options. First, criminalize that behavior. This is what several European countries did with Holocaust deniers. I see it as an extremely and ineffective path to take and something that will never happen in the US. Second, respect the right that people have to think whatever they want to think even if their ideas make you puke. But if you feel extremely uncomfortable discussing 9/11 conspiracy theories because you lost a loved one in 9/11 or in the gas chambers of Auschwitz, just don't participate in the discussion. It's a good way of taking care of yourself while making sure that the 1st. Ammendment of the Bill of Rights isn't violated.



But the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights isn't operative in e-discussions.
Also - nobody puts "in doubt the historicity of" Orville and Wilbur getting their plane off the ground at Kittihawk, why should anyone wish to discuss the historicity of the Holocaust unless they wish to either refute it or minimalise it?

Also, whilst there are those who object to anyone who would "discuss or put in doubt the historicity of the Holocaust", I am not sure that they would do so for the simplistic reason you give.
Nice to see that the Holocaust cannot be far behind when conspiracy theorists get together!


----------



## Everness

Outsider said:


> That's an interesting redefinition of "fact". In this neck of the woods, facts aren't supposed to depend on one's opinion.



Oh, I see you didn't get Berger and Luckmann's memo...   It reads more or less like this. "Reality doesn't exist per se. It doesn't have independent existence. It's created, not discovered. It's socially constructed." 
Here's an article on unreliable but very popular wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_construction


----------



## Outsider

Everness said:


> Oh, I see you didn't get Berger and Luckmann's memo...   It reads more or less like this. "Reality doesn't exist per se. It doesn't have independent existence. It's created, not discovered. It's socially constructed."


And why should I buy into that _opinion_?


----------



## danielfranco

Hee, hee...
In a philosophy class I took a coupla years back, someone said the whole social construction concept was a conspiracy to make all of us buy "The Matrix trilogy" on DVD.
He failed the class, I'm glad to say.


----------



## Everness

maxiogee said:


> But the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights isn't operative in e-discussions.
> 
> *Says who? *
> 
> Also - nobody puts "in doubt the historicity of" Orville and Wilbur getting their plane off the ground at Kittihawk, why should anyone wish to discuss the historicity of the Holocaust unless they wish to either refute it or minimalise it?
> 
> *Prove that no one put in doubt the historicity of Orville and Wilbur getting their plane off the ground at Kittihawk. Tony, you make these foolish statements and then you get cross when I react to them. *
> 
> Also, whilst there are those who object to anyone who would "discuss or put in doubt the historicity of the Holocaust", I am not sure that they would do so for the simplistic reason you give.
> 
> *I'm not following you here. But I wouldn't call the defense of our freedom of speech, a basic human right, simplistic. However, that's what totalitarian regimes would argue. *
> Nice to see that the Holocaust cannot be far behind when conspiracy theorists get together!


----------



## Everness

Outsider said:


> And why should I buy into that _opinion_?



You got me wrong. The fact I was alluding to is that you didn't get the memo. Or is that fact an opinion too?


----------



## Outsider

Wait...

Is it me, or are you using a bit of the famous American irony to be evasive?


----------



## maxiogee

Everness said:


> maxiogee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights isn't operative in e-discussions.
> 
> 
> 
> Says who?
Click to expand...

…says the fact that it doesn't apply in Ireland for starters.




Everness said:


> maxiogee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also - nobody puts "in doubt the historicity of" Orville and Wilbur getting their plane off the ground at Kittihawk, why should anyone wish to discuss the historicity of the Holocaust unless they wish to either refute it or minimalise it?
> 
> 
> 
> Prove that no one put in doubt the historicity of Orville and Wilbur getting their plane off the ground at Kittihawk. Tony, you make these foolish statements and then you get cross when I react to them.
Click to expand...

Several web-searches for "The Wright brothers never flew" produced links to a facetiously titled discussion forum and a comment that they never got out of "ground effect" - the rest lead to sentences such as "The wright brothers never flew after their fourth successful flight" or "The wright brothers never flew in Europe until 1908". 




Everness said:


> maxiogee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, whilst there are those who object to anyone who would "discuss or put in doubt the historicity of the Holocaust", I am not sure that they would do so for the simplistic reason you give.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not following you here.
Click to expand...

Do try! It is not difficult - my use of the word *simplistic* referred to the sole "reason" you gave for your 11th commandment — "because it can upset the survivors or relatives of the victims of the Holocaust." Can I make it any easier for you?




Everness said:


> But I wouldn't call the defense of our freedom of speech, a basic human right, simplistic.


Nor did I.
Freedom of speech is *not* a "basic human right", it is an aspiration. We humans share this planet with a lot of other species and have been given no rights. Certain segments of humanity have claimed rights, but that is different from having them.


----------



## Kräuter_Fee

LV4-26 said:


> OK, now we might be able to start the whole thread all over again ("please, noooooo"  ) and maybe come to some sort of agreement.
> I think it is clear to everybody that... :
> 
> ...goes a little further than just "doubt".
> At least that's how it sounds to me.


Yes, "not believing one thing" goes further than "doubt", however I already said in a previous post I wasn't literal with that statement. I already said I don't _believe_ anything I haven't seen for myself (I don't believe 100% what I am defending here, but I think it's quite possible). I just wanted to emphasize that I don't believe the official truth. I hope it's clear now... 
And you're right... starting all over again would be


----------



## Kräuter_Fee

gotitadeleche said:


> Kräuter_Fee,
> 
> I have a friend who is not only a pilot but a pilot instructor, and has written books about training pilot instructors to teach pilots to fly. Part of his research has been in the area of aviation safety, so he has read quite a lot about airplane crashes. I asked him last night about your comments about the tail remaining intact. He says tails DON'T ALWAYS survive the crash. There are several circumstances that can affect whether the tails survives, one of them being the position of the plane relative to the surface that it impacts with.
> 
> Did you read the link that GenJen provided in her post #10? It had a very detailed explanation of the crash site and why more damage wasn't done, and answers to your contention that the height of the plane would have left a larger hole.


That's interesting, and what does your friend think about the plane in the Pentagon? In this particular case, I don't see how the tail could not have survived (especially, and I'm making a wild guess now, when there was luggage on the ground, how can the tail not be there while there was luggage there?)
And yes, I read GenJen's site, but I've read other sites that say the opposite, both give arguments...


----------



## Everness

Outsider said:


> And why should I buy into that _opinion_?


Ok, let's go back to your original answer. Forget about my reference to the memo. 

You have all the right not to buy into this opinion or any opinion. I also think that it's an opinion but some social constructivists believe that their opinion is a fact. And that's what's going on in this thread. 
9/11 doesn't exist in a vacuum. It only exists in the context of our individual or collective minds. 9/11 is what we make of it. 9/11 can be approached from multiple angles and analyzed at multiple levels. However, some of us are forcefully arguing that the conspiracy theory perspective isn't a valid *opinion*. Why? We argue that the *facts *of 9/11 demonstrate the opposite. I say to all contributors to this thread, especially to those who wrote the most virulent entries, that yours, like it or not, is just that: *one more opinion*. I also want to remind you that 107,839,985 Americans (give or take) suspect that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East. So Kräuter_Fee isn't alone here. She is in good company: 107 million Americans share her perspective on what transpired on 9/11. She just had the bad luck that no one showed up to support her! Ain't life a bitch!


----------



## Kräuter_Fee

GenJen54 said:


> But when you refuse to believe, or even lend any credance, to eye-witness and first-hand accounts as brought to you directly by people known to us - dismissing it with "well, sorry about your friend but I just can't explain that"


Many of those eyewitnesses you mention say they saw something like a military aircraft, instead of a Boeing 757, and the difference is quite big. How can you explain that?
I also asked you (I don't know if you directly or someone else) if you don't find it strange that both towers fell vertically without any explosion (weren't there bombs inside the building?). I find it very strange (that's when I mentioned the aliens, nice avatar by the way , and you guys quoted my irony instead of my question, which was a very smart way of avoiding my question).



> When one day, such terrorism touches you or the town you live in personally (perhaps it already has), then perhaps you will learn to trust those who have been through this type of violence more than you trust fringe journalists with an agenda.


 You're right... and maybe when your country was invaded (this won't happen, but let's suppose you live in another country) because of a _terrorist_ attack that is not so clear, or maybe if you lived in a refugee camp your whole life, like many Palestinians, or maybe if you lived in Beirut and your house, city and family had been destroyed... then maybe you'd ask yourself what _terrorism_ is and who the _terrorists _are. It looks like only the Americans who died in 9-11 count.


----------



## Kräuter_Fee

Outsider said:


> Had you ever discussed it with Americans before? With Americans who might have witnessed the attacks, or lost loved ones to them?...
> 
> To those people, denying the events of 9/11 must sound like denying the Holcaust to a survivor of Nazi concentration camps.


Nope, never, I wouldn't talk about this subject to an American, here I did because I saw this thread and thought to myself "let's reply". I don't go provoking people around the place.
I understand they are sensitive about this, which also makes them biased and their point of view is much less objective other's (this is a generalization though).

Ahhh, but when you mention the people who are being massacred in Iraq, Afghanistan, the injustice in Guantanamo or the help they give to Israel (for them 9-11 is terrorism, but all these things aren't, they will start speaking about democracy, talibans, 9-11, nonsense to justify the unjustifiable) they're not so sensitive anymore, as I said, American lives are more worth than other lives... yes my friend, we're third-class meat


----------



## Outsider

Everness said:


> However, some of us are forcefully arguing that the conspiracy theory perspective isn't a valid *opinion*. Why? We argue that the *facts *of 9/11 demonstrate the opposite. I say to all contributors to this thread, especially to those who wrote the most virulent entries, that yours, like it or not, is just that: *one more opinion*. I also want to remind you that 107,839,985 Americans (give or take) suspect that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East. So Kräuter_Fee isn't alone here. She is in good company: 107 million Americans share her perspective on what transpired on 9/11.


I take it, then, Everness, that the point of this thread _is_ to present personal opinions regarding conspiracy theories, rather than to discuss the arguments behind those opinions, as I wrote above. (Without getting into the slippery philosophies of whether what we normally call "facts" are actually reducible to what we call "opinions".)

I think it's important to understand this, where you want to go with this thread, because many of the negative reactions to *Kräuter_Fee*'s opinions were critiques to the _facts and arguments_ she seems to accept. If we can agree that the point of this thread is for people to presente their opinions, not to discuss their arguments for holding those opinions, then I believe the discussion can continue with more civility.


----------



## Outsider

Kräuter_Fee said:


> Nope, never, I wouldn't talk about this subject to an American, here I did because I saw this thread and thought to myself "let's reply". I don't go provoking people around the place.
> I understand they are sensitive about this, which also makes them biased and their point of view is much less objective other's (this is a generalization though).


I never thought your were trying to provoke people with your replies to this thread, and I didn't notice anyone else who seemed to think so.

As for the fact that it was the first time you expressed these ideas before an audience which included Americans, don't you think that may explain what you were wondering about in the previous page of this thread? (Quoted below.)



Kräuter_Fee said:


> I've discussed this with people before (not over the Internet) and they either agree or disagree, but the reactions I saw here were quite different. I wonder why...





Kräuter_Fee said:


> Ahhh, but when you mention the people who are being massacred in Iraq, Afghanistan, the injustice in Guantanamo or the help they give to Israel (for them 9-11 is terrorism, but all these things aren't, they will start speaking about democracy, talibans, 9-11, nonsense to justify the unjustifiable) they're not so sensitive anymore, as I said, American lives are more worth than other lives... yes my friend, we're third-class meat


If you believe that, you must not have noticed the many threads here in the forum where various posters were critical of U.S. foreign policy. Some critics described them as "anti-American".


----------



## Poetic Device

As far as the conspiracy part of it is concerned, how many people here think that 9/11 was basically today's equivolent of Pearl Harbor?


----------



## maxiogee

Everness said:


> I say to all contributors to this thread, especially to those who wrote the most virulent entries, that yours, like it or not, is just that: *one more opinion*. I also want to remind you that 107,839,985 Americans (give or take) suspect that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East. So Kräuter_Fee isn't alone here. She is in good company: 107 million Americans share her perspective on what transpired on 9/11. She just had the bad luck that no one showed up to support her! Ain't life a bitch!



Maybe the figure is slightly inflated.
I have already queried the methodology of the 'survey' which produced that result. We have actually seen no evidence of any survey - just some figure stated by a concern which states that "We are not research suppliers". You quote that figure but cannot back it with any details, size of sample, questions asked, selection of sample, margins of error - please give us something with which to establish that this was a serious piece of research.

Could it be that no-one showed up because they aren't there?


----------



## maxwels

Everness said:


> Apparently one in 3 Americans do.
> 
> According to a recent poll conducted from July 6 through 24 at the Scripps Survey Research Center at the University of Ohio more than one-third of Americans suspect federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East.
> 
> http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll
> 
> "One out of three sounds high, but that may very well be right," said Lee Hamilton, former vice chairman of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also called the 9/11 commission).
> 
> http://www.nypost.com/news/national...as_hargrove______and_guido_h__stempel_iii.htm
> 
> Other results are interesting:
> 
> 40% of individuals polled believe that "Officials in the federal government were directly responsible for the assassination of U.S. president John F. Kennedy" and 38% believe that "The federal government is withholding proof of the existence of intelligent life from others planets."
> 
> http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/12765
> 
> Are conspiracy theories popular in your country or is this mostly an American phenomenon?


----------



## maxwels

Conspiracy begets controversy which was in fact a prophecy once proclaimed by prophet concerning the devastation of pentagon.As corruption from all quarters spicing up, it signals the dawn of a new anti-Christ era to bring untold agony upon mankind further in the years to come. I believe in conspiracy only to find a place in eternity!


----------



## gotitadeleche

Kräuter_Fee said:


> That's interesting, and what does your friend think about the plane in the Pentagon? In this particular case, I don't see how the tail could not have survived (especially, and I'm making a wild guess now, when there was luggage on the ground, how can the tail not be there while there was luggage there?)
> And yes, I read GenJen's site, but I've read other sites that say the opposite, both give arguments...



He said in this case it would be more probable to find the wings sheared off. He is also very suspicious of governments and journalists; when I asked him directly if he believed a plane hit the Pentagon, his answer was, "That is what they _tell _us happened." Apparently he is not totally convinced, but neither is he ready to deny that it happened. But the fact that there was no tail intact was not a proof for him that it did not happen.


----------



## Poetic Device

Kräuter_Fee said:


> Nope, never, I wouldn't talk about this subject to an American, here I did because I saw this thread and thought to myself "let's reply". I don't go provoking people around the place.
> I understand they are sensitive about this, which also makes them biased and their point of view is much less objective other's (this is a generalization though).  Careful, you're starting to group us together, and that can be dangerous.
> 
> ...American lives are more worth than other lives... yes my friend, we're third-class meat


  Again, not all Americans think that.  Just because our "leader" is a jerk, that does not make the rest of us jerks.  Granted, we "vote" our officials in, but a good amount of people do not vote because they know that what really matters is who in the electoral college is bought out.  (I am one of those fools that vote anyway )


----------



## Kräuter_Fee

gotitadeleche said:


> He said in this case it would be more probable to find the wings sheared off. He is also very suspicious of governments and journalists; when I asked him directly if he believed a plane hit the Pentagon, his answer was, "That is what they _tell _us happened." Apparently he is not totally convinced, but neither is he ready to deny that it happened. But the fact that there was no tail intact was not a proof for him that it did not happen.


That's very, very interesting


----------



## Kräuter_Fee

Poetic Device said:


> Again, not all Americans think that.  Just because our "leader" is a jerk, that does not make the rest of us jerks.  Granted, we "vote" our officials in, but a good amount of people do not vote because they know that what really matters is who in the electoral college is bought out.  (I am one of those fools that vote anyway )


That's why I said it was a generalization, I know it's dangerous, but I believe generalizing is something natural (we all do it), as long as we don't discriminate people because of our generalizations, it's safe, I think.


----------



## maxiogee

Kräuter_Fee said:


> but I believe generalizing is something natural (we all do it)


----------



## Everness

Outsider said:


> I take it, then, Everness, that the point of this thread _is_ to present personal opinions regarding conspiracy theories, rather than to discuss the arguments behind those opinions, as I wrote above. (Without getting into the slippery philosophies of whether what we normally call "facts" are actually reducible to what we call "opinions".)
> 
> I think it's important to understand this, where you want to go with this thread, because many of the negative reactions to *Kräuter_Fee*'s opinions were critiques to the _facts and arguments_ she seems to accept. If we can agree that the point of this thread is for people to presente their opinions, not to discuss their arguments for holding those opinions, then I believe the discussion can continue with more civility.



Yes, the point of this thread is to present opinions regarding conspiracy theories because that's the only thing we can present (see my previous post). In presenting your opinion about 9/11, for instance, you can and should present your facts. I see no problem with that. It's true that Kräuter_Fee is presenting facts but people who are reacting to her opinion are disputing those facts by referring directly or indirectly to other facts that they believe are more factual! 

Let me illustrate this. "Loose Change" is a documentary written and directed by Dylan Avery which presents an alternative explanation of events during the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks. In the film, that has been watched by millions of people, Avery discusses some of the same facts Kräuter_Fee has brought forward and many, many others. For instance, Russ Wittenburg, a former commercial and air-force pilot, is quoted saying in Loose Change that Flight 77 could not possibly have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into a high-speed stall. Well, that's presented as a fact that needs to be refuted or confirmed. I strongly recommend people watching it to understand where the other camp is coming from. It would also be interesting to find out if you're able to dispute or refute all or some of the facts the documentary presents with complete confidence before you research them. 
http://www.loosechange911.com/

This is what R. L. Shaffer had to say about this documentary.

_Loose Change is a terrifying, masterful, well paced 9/11 conspiracy documentary that puts Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 to absolute shame.
_http://www.dvdfuture.com/review.php?id=805


----------



## Outsider

Everness said:


> Yes, the point of this thread is to present opinions regarding conspiracy theories because that's the only thing we can present (see my previous post). In presenting your opinion about 9/11, for instance, you can and should present your facts. I see no problem with that. It's true that Kräuter_Fee is presenting facts but people who are reacting to her opinion are disputing those facts by referring directly or indirectly to other facts that they believe are more factual!


Excuse me, but which facts did Kräuter_Fee present that supported her opinions? The 'fact' that plane tails always survive crashes?...

In all fairness, though, I do not think that Kräuter_Fee ever intended to _discuss why_ she gives credence to the theories she does, here. And that's fair enough, because the title of your thread is "Do you believe in conspiracy theories?", not "Are conspiracy theories right?"


----------



## Outsider

Everness said:


> It would also be interesting to find out if you're able to dispute or refute all or some of the facts the documentary presents with complete confidence before you research them.


Why would that be 'interesting'?


----------



## Everness

Outsider said:


> Excuse me, but which facts did Kräuter_Fee present that supported her opinions? The 'fact' that plane tails always survive crashes?...
> 
> In all fairness, though, I do not think that Kräuter_Fee ever intended to _discuss why_ she gives credence to the theories she does, here. And that's fair enough, because the title of your thread is "Do you believe in conspiracy theories?", not "Are conspiracy theories right?"



First, mine was an example of a fact that the documentary presents. Second, if you knew that a particular conspiracy theory was wrong, would you believe in it?  I think that what actually happened is that we ended up discussing the question "Are conspiracy theories right?" and not the original question "Do you believe in conspiracy theories"? But I see no problem in tackling both issues.


----------



## Everness

Outsider said:


> Why would that be 'interesting'?



Because you might find yourself faced with facts that you've never heard about or questions that you've never asked yourself. That's the beauty of this documentary! It provides you with new angles and perspectives. 

But (a) if you are serioulsy allergic to alternative takes on reality, or (b) if you've already made up your mind on this issue, or (c) if you already know the real indisputable facts that in no way can be refuted by anyone in this world, or (d) you are already on the watch list of the FBI of suspected terrorists, watching the documentary would be a waste of time and somewhat dangerous.


----------



## ireney

I am sorry but I can't help it; why would it be interesting to see if I can tell you how i.e. a building built specifically to withstand massive attacks such as the Pentagon "behaves" when hit by a Boeing, without any research? Am I supposed to know? Do I have to know?

I can't help wondering if that's how you accept conspiracy theories such as this. Are you thinking "Since I can't refute what it says without research then it's true". I hope not because that's how my uncle believes that Plato wrote about aliens. He wouldn't pick up a book of Plato and read for himself even in modern Greek (ancient Greek is way beyond his abilities). Furthermore, when his sister (mommy dearest) had enough of this and showed him (both the original text and the modern Greek) that the part of Plato's works his favourite author alluded to was about something else completely  his answer was that we surely didn't believe _these _books (we have Plato's works in more than one edition)! These are lies, the authorities("They") have tampered with the original text


----------



## Kräuter_Fee

maxiogee said:


>


Just wondering... do you never generalize? never? Wow, are you a human or Superman?


----------



## cuchuflete

maxwels said:


> Conspiracy begets controversy which was in fact a prophecy once proclaimed by prophet concerning the devastation of pentagon.As corruption from all quarters spicing up, it signals the dawn of a new anti-Christ era to bring untold agony upon mankind further in the years to come. I believe in conspiracy only to find a place in eternity!



This statement is ironclad proof of a conspiracy to lead us to believe in prophets.  As you can easily determine by spending a little time on the internet, prophets are as real as purple cheese and left-handed monkey wrenches in the nests of starlings.  It all makes good sense if you suspend disbelief.
Just ask your government.


----------



## Kräuter_Fee

Outsider said:


> Excuse me, but which facts did Kräuter_Fee present that supported her opinions? The 'fact' that plane tails always survive crashes?...


I mentioned other facts (or "facts" too). I am not an expert, but I've read a few things and talked to experts. Sorry, if being a layman in the subject makes me an ignorant who is unable to have her opinion and is condemned to believe what they want us to believe... I am not going to take that. 



> In all fairness, though, I do not think that Kräuter_Fee ever intended to _discuss why_ she gives credence to the theories she does, here.


In fact I don't mind discussing, what bothers me is arguing and the fact that some members here call me ridiculous for believing such things. If they attack me with such words, then, it does bother me to _discuss_. Some people aren't so polite though, so you can't expect much from them


----------



## Outsider

Poetic Device said:


> As far as the conspiracy part of it is concerned, how many people here think that 9/11 was basically today's equivolent of Pearl Harbor?


In the sense that both led the U.S. into a war?...


----------



## cuchuflete

It may be a bit late, given all the vitriol, statements characterized as facts without any indication of the basis for calling them facts, and the "this site says this about that site" mazes...

But...just for the fun of it:  Please define "conspiracy theory".

Is this thread a conspiracy theory in action?


----------



## .   1

cuchuflete said:


> Is this thread a conspiracy theory in action?


Thanks for spotting the 600 pound gorilla in the room.

.,,


----------



## Everness

cuchuflete said:


> But...just for the fun of it:  Please define "conspiracy theory".



That's a good point. I just realized the pejorative connotation of conspiracy theory. Maybe I should have used "alternative reading of reality" or something like that.


----------



## maxiogee

Kräuter_Fee said:


> Just wondering... do you never generalize?


Of course I do - I was smiling at the generalisation implicit in your comment.
We _may_ all do it, but I wouldn't be so bold as to assert that.

I believe there are two types of generalisation
1 - the sort almost all children try, when wheedling their parents — "But Dad, all the boys have one!"
2 - the sort which adults try, which are equally untrue, when trying to justify personal preferre ~ !"




Kräuter_Fee said:


> Just wondering... do you never generalize?never? Wow, are you a human or Superman?


It would be nice if you'd wait for an answer.

I'm just a human, brutally aware of his own brokenness, incompleteness and fallibillity. Some of my lapses have been serious enough to teach me some serious truths. One of which is that when choosing between probable causes, one should go for the one which doesn't depend on perfection.


----------



## Poetic Device

Outsider said:


> In the sense that both led the U.S. into a war?...


In the sense that both presidents knew aboput the attacks before they happened, but failed to do anything about it--whether or not it was intentional.  I have heard a few people at my college entertain the thought, and I was wondering if anyone else thought it.


----------



## Poetic Device

cuchuflete said:


> This statement is ironclad proof of a conspiracy to lead us to believe in prophets. As you can easily determine by spending a little time on the internet, prophets are as real as purple cheese and left-handed monkey wrenches in the nests of starlings. It all makes good sense if you suspend disbelief.
> Just ask your government.


 
So I guess that the prophets that fortold of Christ's coming were purple cheese?  (Actually, there are some blue cheeses that are purple, so there )


----------



## geve

cuchuflete said:


> It may be a bit late, given all the vitriol, statements characterized as facts without any indication of the basis for calling them facts, and the "this site says this about that site" mazes...
> 
> But...just for the fun of it: Please define "conspiracy theory".
> 
> Is this thread a conspiracy theory in action?


Thank you, Cuchu!

Debating opinions if fine, but should not lead (as often happens in political debates...) to attacking the person who holds an opposite opinion as a whole, rather than the opinion itself. 
I reckon this has been done by both sides in this thread (that's how I interpreted your post 51 for instance, Everness)

Now to get back to the definition of "conspiracy theories", here's what the WRD says about it:
CONSPIRACY
_a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot) _
_a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act _
_a group of conspirators banded together to achieve some harmful or illegal purpose _

THEORY
_a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena_
_a belief that can guide behavior_ 
_a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena_

So now, what is a "conspiracy theory"?
The idea that there is a plot to carry out some harmful and illegal acts, which would explain certain facts or phenomena?...
I'm afraid that my attempt at defining the concept does not prove very convincing.  

I am firmly convinced that governements -any government- holds back information. I believe this goes with the function of such a social institution. 
As a child, were you informed about each and every decision that your parents made, and the motives behind it? 
As an employee, do you think you have all the details of the strategy of your company? 
No - and you would probably not know what to do with the information anyway. Politics is a profession. 
So we don't know everything, we might even be told lies (which I'm also sure of) - The important question rather seems to be, is there a harmful intent behind this information withholding?

I think no one could possibly answer "yes" to the question asked in the title of this thread. Is there anyone here who would say that they're ready to believe anything as long as there's an idea of conspiracy in it? Well, I personally believe in the theory that dark-haired females are involved in a world-scale conspiracy aiming at the complete eradication of blondes from the surface of this planet; their first action is to try and marry as much blond guys as they can, to reduce the probability that these men's offspring has blond hair. Welcome, you fellow believers whose answer to this thread's title was "yes"!


----------



## geve

Poetic Device said:


> So I guess that the prophets that fortold of Christ's coming were purple cheese? (Actually, there are some blue cheeses that are purple, so there )


Discussing religious beliefs can be dangerous... isn't this thread nasty enough?


----------



## Poetic Device

geve said:


> Discussing religious beliefs can be dangerous... isn't this thread nasty enough?


 

However mostly entertaining.  lol


----------



## maxiogee

geve said:


> Debating opinions if fine, but should not lead (as often happens in political debates...) to attacking the person who holds an opposite opinion as a whole, rather than the opinion itself.
> I reckon this has been done by both sides in this thread (that's how I interpreted your post 51 for instance, Everness)


In case I am included in that broad brushstroke, may I apologise for any offence caused. I have merely intended throughout this discussion to ridicule the ridiculous — a word I remember using in its sense of "inviting derision" about the concept of conspiracy theory.
I also used the word _naiveté_ of a forer@ — but validly used it, I believe - "lack of judgement", how can one come to a judgement in matters where evidence is so outstandingly lacking?

Anyway, onwards to the meaty issue.
I have seen it written that "Irish diplomacy is the art of telling a fellow to go to hell in such a way as to make him look forward to the trip." — well politics must surely be the art of telling a fellow to "Eff off" in such a way as to make him believe that you are wishing him _bon voyage_.
Politicians lie - it is what the job entails. Does that mean that every lie is a conspiracy?
Put it this way, just because a man lies to his wife about where he has been at night doesn't mean he has a mistress, maybe he was losing that month's mortgage repayment at poker!


----------



## cuchuflete

If you are in a jocular mood, read on.  If you are painfully serious, go back to post #1 and get worked up all over again.


Let's take Geve's good work in finding definitions and apply it to the quaint notion of prophets.

Conspiracy?  Only if you believe that prophets, and all the stuff about and around them, are harmful.  Many members of the forums would find this idea offensive, while many others would be quick to declare that "harmful" is not nearly strong enough. 

Onward to the theoretical:  


> _a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena_
> _a belief that can guide behavior_


  Tautologies abound to "prove" the existence of prophets, but empirical evidence is in short supply, as are reliable eye-witness accounts, unless you want to take stories passed from person to person to person to person, finally written years after a supposed sighting, and then translated over and over again.
Elvis has been seen and described by this method.


----------



## geve

Please allow me to correct my previous statement:


> I reckon this has been done by some posters on both sides in this thread


...but I don't even think that there are only two sides here (in spite of what some posts seem to imply) 



maxiogee said:


> Anyway, onwards to the meaty issue.
> I have seen it written that "Irish diplomacy is the art of telling a fellow to go to hell in such a way as to make him look forward to the trip." — well politics must surely be the art of telling a fellow to "Eff off" in such a way as to make him believe that you are wishing him _bon voyage_.
> Politicians lie - it is what the job entails. Does that mean that every lie is a conspiracy?
> Put it this way, just because a man lies to his wife about where he has been at night doesn't mean he has a mistress, maybe he was losing that month's mortgage repayment at poker!


Great explanation, and the example too   
The guy might also have lied because he was planning a surprise birthday party for his wife. Or, he went to the doctor and learnt that he had only 3 months to live and needs some time to find a way to announce it to her. Or, he's a secret agent and would put her life at risk if he told her what he did. Or... well, you get my point


----------



## cuchuflete

Mark Twain may not have been Irish (or maybe he was in some measure descended/ascended from that tribe??) but he understood Tony's concept when he wrote something like this:
(paraphased...I'm too busy fighting off prophets to look up the precise quote.)

'Every now and then the American people commit a grievous error and send an honest man to Congress.'


----------



## Everness

We shouldn't confuse *content *and *process *when it comes to monitor how our governments conduct business. 

For instance, 9/11 conspiracy theories can be categorized as *content*. Many of contributors to this thread --well, almost all of them!-- tended to dismiss this particular conspiracy theory as the work of outliers with too much time on their hands and who, on top of that, haven't taken their anti-psychotic medication to control their paranoia. I'd admit that some of these theories are kinda way out there. 

*Process*, on the other hand, is the healthy practice of thinking critically. In that sense, I believe that some of us are extremely naive when it comes to things our government does. We tend to go with what they say and accept it at face value. I think that 9/11 has deeply affected the way Americans think. Our ability to think critically has taken a huge blow. Why? We are a scared people. Simple as that. The image of the Twin Towers being hit by planes and then collapsing still haunts us. Our emotional and intellectual processes are fused; as a result, we are not thinking clearly. So we are giving Bush carte blanche to conduct the war on terror. "Mr. President: We don't want to feel scared anymore. If you think that invading Iraq will ensure our national safety and no more planes are going to hit buildings in our cities, just go ahead." And that's how Bush got reelected. We have lost the capacity to stop and tell ourselves: "Wait, this is B.S.!" 

So thank you Kräuter_Fee for reminding us that our head has other purposes besides wearing a baseball cap or a beautiful hairdo. If we don't use the gift of critical thinking, we'll eventually lose it.


----------



## ireney

Woe me! I don't believe in conspiracy theories (no matter what each indivisual word means, the two of them together have a specific meaning) AND don't wear baseball caps or have a beautiful haido. I am a complete failure!!


----------



## geve

Everness said:


> *Process*, on the other hand, is the healthy practice of thinking critically.
> 
> _[...] _
> 
> So thank you Kräuter_Fee for reminding us that our head has other purposes besides wearing a baseball cap or a beautiful hairdo. If we don't use the gift of critical thinking, we'll eventually lose it.


I don't remember reading any posts in this thread that opposed that opinion...
But once again, it is not "I believe blindly everything I'm told" vs. "I believe there was a conspiracy"


(someone please tell me why I keep typing "blondly" instead of "blindly"!!???)


----------



## cuchuflete

Just in case Everness didn't notice, I've already said, both in this thread and in many others in which both he and I have participated, that I mistrust government.  To have a healthy cynicism or sceptiscism or doubts about the veracity of government declarations is natural and salubrious.  To embrace crackpot theories just because they accuse government of dishonesty is silly.  

A theory in contradiction of government posture should be examined with the same scepticism governments have earned.  Some turn out to be true and useful; others are convincing only so long as one doesn't seek verification and logic.  Being contrary to government is no proof of veracity.


----------



## Everness

ireney said:


> Woe me! I don't believe in conspiracy theories (no matter what each indivisual word means, the two of them together have a specific meaning) AND don't wear baseball caps or have a beautiful haido. I am a complete failure!!



You are confusing content and process. We should be using critical thinking (process) for anything and everything (content), not only for alleged conspiracy theories. Paraphrasing Jesus, "You strain your water so you won't accidentally swallow a gnat; then you swallow a camel!" (Matthew 23.24). And there are too many f*cking camels that we are either swallowing or that are being shoved up our ass*s as we speak.

If some of us applied the same level of critical thinking displayed in this thread to other things our goverments are currently doing, things would be quite different in this broken world of ours. For instance, Americans wouldn't have allowed this administration to lie to them about the rationale to invade Iraq and get away with it. 

Ah, on a different note, I've seen women wear baseball caps AND beautiful hairdos. I think they look cute. But I wouldn't say that you're a failure because you wear them or don't wear them, separately or combined. However, failure to engage our neocortex could be construed as a significant failure. But that's not your case. I've found it the hard way...


----------



## ireney

Everness first of all thank you for your compliment.

I should note thought that, since you believe that I do use what grey cells haven't been snuffed out by excessive partying in my younger days, you cannot possibly believe that I am confusing content with process and that I am prone to reply in a _seemingly_ flippant way.

When you thanking Krauter_Fee's contribution to this thread  by saying 





> So thank you Kräuter_Fee for reminding us that our head has other purposes besides wearing a baseball cap or a beautiful hairdo. If we don't use the gift of critical thinking, we'll eventually lose


 
am I not allowed to think that, since Krauter_Fee's post have all been referring (one way or another) to the conspiracies theories, you equate believing in them with using our head in more ways than a hatstand?

This is exactly the attitude that irritates me: considering the "others" (in this case those who don't believe in [put _any_ noun here] as stupid, unthinking, un-enlightened.


----------



## maxwels

cuchuflete said:


> If you are in a jocular mood, read on. If you are painfully serious, go back to post #1 and get worked up all over again.
> 
> 
> Let's take Geve's good work in finding definitions and apply it to the quaint notion of prophets.
> 
> Conspiracy? Only if you believe that prophets, and all the stuff about and around them, are harmful. Many members of the forums would find this idea offensive, while many others would be quick to declare that "harmful" is not nearly strong enough.
> 
> Onward to the theoretical:
> Tautologies abound to "prove" the existence of prophets, but empirical evidence is in short supply, as are reliable eye-witness accounts, unless you want to take stories passed from person to person to person to person, finally written years after a supposed sighting, and then translated over and over again.
> Elvis has been seen and described by this method.


----------



## maxwels

Let's don't get worked up with 'conspiracy' too much.Today there were multitude of distractions which are suffice enough to raise controversies fuelled by conspiracies.Work to details of what God requires of us to do rather than splitting hairs with 'conspiracy' to land yourself in a muddle of controversy!Be brave to face the world.Hail to prophets used by God!


----------



## .   1

maxwels said:


> Let's don't get worked up with 'conspiracy' too much.Today there were multitude of distractions which are suffice enough to raise controversies fuelled by conspiracies.Work to details of what God requires of us to do rather than splitting hairs with 'conspiracy' to land yourself in a muddle of controversy!Be brave to face the world.Hail to prophets used by God!


So there we have it folks.
All of our problems completely solved with one three letter word.
The Theory Of Religion. 
No proof necessary.
No claim too outrageous to make.
Come one come all to the grand circus of suspended disbelief.
Any time you want to win a debate all you have to say is "Because God Said So."

We don't need to get worked up about conspiracy theories but I am fairly certain that I will not stop thinking about something because I have been told to stop thinking by a Godite.

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

maxwels said:


> Work to details of what God requires of us to do


That would be easy, were it not for the fact that God hasn't told us what to do.

The only instruction manuals you get in this life were written by humans.
They may claim that God told them what to write - but we only have their word for that.
God seems, whichever one you care to mention, not to deal with committees - so there is no confirmatory evidence of the divine nature of these manuals.

In a quick search of the Old Testament - source of Judaism, Christianity and Islam (in all their various sects and guises) - God only speaks to more than one person at a time on a handful of occasions…

Ge 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Ex 6:26 These are that Aaron and Moses, to whom the LORD said, Bring out the children of Israel from the land of Egypt according to their armies.

Ex 9:8 And the LORD said unto Moses and unto Aaron, Take to you handfuls of ashes of the furnace, and let Moses sprinkle it toward the heaven in the sight of Pharaoh.

Ex 12:43 And the LORD said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of the passover: There shall no stranger eat thereof:

Now, seeing as how it is believed that Moses was the one who wrote the books these pieces appear in, as books of law for "his people", I don't place much belief in their impartiality.


----------



## Everness

ireney said:


> When you thanking Krauter_Fee's contribution to this thread  by saying
> 
> am I not allowed to think that, since Krauter_Fee's post have all been referring (one way or another) to the conspiracies theories, you equate believing in them with using our head in more ways than a hatstand?
> 
> This is exactly the attitude that irritates me: considering the "others" (in this case those who don't believe in [put _any_ noun here] as stupid, unthinking, un-enlightened.



Let's see if I can explain myself. Draw a line and distribute the numbers 1-10 along it.  You now have a 1-10 scale. 1 (one) would represent opinions as subjective as they can get and 10 (ten) would represent facts as objective as they can get. 1 would represent a belief 100% not grounded in reality and 10 would represent a belief grounded 100% in reality. So the further up you move on the scale, the closer you get to the world of solid opinions based on objective facts. Science points in that direction. 

In this thread we discussed two opinions. One that argued that 9/11 was the act of terrorists and the other one that 9/11 was orchestrated by the US government or, at least, that the official explanation didn’t add up. If I asked people who defended the former opinion to place it on the continuum, I’m sure that they would choose # 9 or even 10. If you reread the thread you’ll realize that many people believe that their opinion is based on facts no doubts whatsoever. But then came Krauter_Fee and she shared her opinion. She believes that things don’t add up in the official version. If you reread the thread, I’m sure she would also place her opinion way up there: #9, at least. So someone is wrong and someone is right. We can’t have it both ways. We can’t have two opposite opinions on the same facts overlapping on the continuum. One has to stay there and the other one bumped down to #1 or 2, where it surely belongs. 

What camp was able to come up with opinions closer to golden #10, beliefs grounded 100% in reality? If you review the thread, I don't think there was a winner. No camp outdid the other one (although people would claim victory every time they questioned or challenged the other party, the "I gotcha!" attitude). There were questions, counter-questions, anecdotic references, quotes here and there, irony (lot's of it!), alien jokes, etc. but no slam dunk. There was, however, a clear competition on emotional statements but no prizes will be awarded in this category. 

Here's my point ireney. I’m not as interested in determining who is right and who is wrong as in making sure that we use our heads, at least every now and then. This is my problem. Some of us believe that most of our opinions are close to #10 but we never check any facts. We go with the flow. We go with what the media says or what my family or friends say or what the preacher says.  We allow other people to reach conclusions for us and we believe them as if they were God’s revelation. What I find more troubling is two things. First, that many people trust their government too much for my taste. I'm not saying that our governments are always trying to screw us but some skepticism is healthy. Second, that many people think that if most people believe in something and don't question it, it must be true so I don't need to do my homework and check the facts myself. There are certain things that shouldn't be outsourced.

This, I believe, has been Krauter_Fee great contribution: to make us think and not take things for granted. It's not what she believed but that she prompted us to have a good Italian discussion engaging our neocortex and our limbic system!


----------



## Alxmrphi

*Why does everybody class "Conspiracy Theories" into one big lump.
It is a stupid thing to do..

Every event that has reasonable questions that haven't been answered, causes a conspiracy, so whether it is:

* JFK
* Moon landing
* 9/11
* Weapons of mass destruction

These are all SEPERATE events, so when someone says "Do you believe in conspiracy theories?"
Why is this question addressing the fact you either don't, and believe none of them, or you believe them all? It doesn't make any logical sense to do that.

I have seen plenty of credible people come out and cast their own doubts, and clarify my suspicions to make me think it is a sensible view to take, for every citizen of the world, to take a step back and get more sides of the arguement, and re-evaluate what happened.

People questioning what our government says is not a loony thing to do, look at the track record, Richard Nixon is a prime example, the guys at the Washington Post were called loonies and the whole government came out and said "Ignore them, they just think some big crazy... master plan is going on through the whole of government"...*

............................


			
				ElaineG said:
			
		

> I think you've hit the nail on the head. I think people find something comforting in the idea that there's a "master government plan" organizing all these events, rather than simply admitting that we are all vulnerable to violence and hate.


..............................
*A view like this, and what turned out to be true? We all know.
There was a master government plan that forced him to resign after corruptness was exploited all over the government.


So why isn't it the most logical thing to do, and look at explanations and try to answer the questions that haven't been answered and brushed under the carpet?

People who can't comprehend a posibility of a conspiracy theory, tend to believe what a government says, and is this not a good reason for governments to brand the people who ask the questions, as crazy?

........We won't even talk about Halleburton and how much they gained from this unexpected switch to Iraq that George Bush admitted 3 days ago had "nothing" to do with 9/11.
*


----------



## Everness

Alex_Murphy said:


> So why isn't it the most logical thing to do, and look at explanations and try to answer the questions that haven't been answered and brushed under the carpet?
> 
> People who can't comprehend a posibility of a conspiracy theory, tend to believe what a government says, and is this not a good reason for governments to brand the people who ask the questions, as crazy?
> 
> ........We won't even talk about Halleburton and how much they gained from this unexpected switch to Iraq that George Bush admitted 3 days ago had "nothing" to do with 9/11.



I think you are drawing a needed distinction between conspiracy theories and  the right and duty that smart and committed citizens have to ask questions and demand answers from their governments. I have no problem if governments call people who look for explanations conspiracy theorists or loonies. It's a very effective method of social control and a tactic to get people behind your policies. But I have a serious problem when this comes from other citizens or members of society who label you as a conspiracy theorist or a looney because you try to hold your goverment accountable while seeking answers to questions you have. If I state that this happened in this thread will the label conspiracy theorist be slapped on my forehead? If that's the case, I'll remain silent...


----------



## geve

Everness said:


> What I find more troubling is two things. First, that many people trust their government too much for my taste. I'm not saying that our governments are always trying to screw us but some skepticism is healthy.


I am surprised by this statement - is this a cultural issue after all? This certainly doesn't apply to the way politics is viewed in my country - and in many others I would think. As soon as someone gets involved in politics he automatically gets suspicious and will be intensely monitored and criticized and suspected of nasty actions. That's what many newspapers and magazines make a living of. How politicians are all tainted or/and incompetent is actually a very useful topic for social talks (because everyone agrees on it), along with the weather that-is-never-what-we-would-like-it-to-be, and how [insert_anything_here] was so much better before. _Ah ça c'est sûr, ma brave dame, dans la politique c'est tous des pourris !_
This skepticism can only get stronger when one sees the many law cases around some politicians. 
And the higher the position, the more suspicious they get. So the government? They can never be at rest!

Which does not mean that the skeptical citizens that we are believe they have a plot against their people, or that there is an obscure purpose that underlies their actions. Why do you keep fostering the confusion between the two things? Is this some kind of conspiracy? 



Everness said:


> But I have a serious problem when this comes from other citizens or members of society who label you as a conspiracy theorist


Aren't you the one who chose this label, considering you named this thread "Do you believe in conspiracy theory"?


----------



## .   1

Everness said:


> But I have a serious problem when this comes from other citizens or members of society who label you as a conspiracy theorist or a looney because you try to hold your goverment accountable while seeking answers to questions you have.


Tag.
Everness you ill*defined *the terms of the discussion to constantly revolve around conspiracy theories yet you are unable to define conspiracy theories
So many of your questions are slippery and I am now wondering if this is a conspiracy on your part to be able to back away if things do not go your way.

.,,


----------



## Everness

geve said:


> I am surprised by this statement - is this a cultural issue after all? This certainly doesn't apply to the way politics is viewed in my country - and in many others I would think. As soon as someone gets involved in politics he automatically gets suspicious and will be intensely monitored and criticized and suspected of nasty actions. That's what many newspapers and magazines make a living of. How politicians are all tainted or/and incompetent is actually a very useful topic for social talks (because everyone agrees on it), along with the weather that-is-never-what-we-would-like-it-to-be, and how [insert_anything_here] was so much better before. _Ah ça c'est sûr, ma brave dame, dans la politique c'est tous des pourris !_
> This skepticism can only get stronger when one sees the many law cases around some politicians.
> And the higher the position, the more suspicious they get. So the government? They can never be at rest!



My statement refers to one particular episode in American politics that I still have problems digesting: the reelection of W. in November of 2004. By then Americans knew that there were no WMD in Iraq and that W. had lied to us. However, we reelected him. When I say that many people trust their government too much for my taste, I was making reference to this particular shameful episode.  



geve said:


> Which does not mean that the skeptical citizens that we are believe they have a plot against their people, or that there is an obscure purpose that underlies their actions. Why do you keep fostering the confusion between the two things? Is this some kind of conspiracy?
> 
> Aren't you the one who chose this label, considering you named this thread "Do you believe in conspiracy theory"?



Let's define conspiracy theory quoting Wikipedia. I'll just make reference to three statements. 

_A conspiracy theory attempts to explain the ultimate cause of an event (usually a political, social, or historical event) as a secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert alliance of powerful people or organizations rather than as an overt activity or as natural occurrence._
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

The following statement describes how this term is used in mainstream academia.

_The term "conspiracy theory" is usually used by mainstream scholars and in popular culture to identify a type of folklore similar to an urban legend, especially an explanatory narrative which is constructed with methodological flaws._
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

Then the article makes a point that I have made several times in this thread:

_The term is also used pejoratively to dismiss allegedly misconceived, paranoid or outlandish rumors. Most people who have their theory or speculation labeled a "conspiracy theory" reject the term as prejudicial._
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

First, I agree with the definition of conspiracy theory that mainstream scholars have put forward. It has 3 elements. First, it's folklore or urban legend. Second, it's a narrative that attempts to explain the cause of an event as a secret plot by a covert alliance of powerful people or organizations. Please note the dynamic between the two explanatory narratives: overt vs. covert and natural vs. instigated. Third, and this is perhaps the most important theme, the narrative explanation has significant methodological flaws. Who decides what methodologies are sound and which are flawed? Ah, "esos son otros 20 pesos" and could lead to another conspiracy theory! If you subscribe to this definition, it's difficult to believe in conspiracy theories. They are amusing and interesting and they might contain facts. But as a whole, they don't hold up. 

However, believing in conspiracy theories doesn't amount to deserving a psychopathological label slapped on your forehead. Someone in this thread alluded to conspiracy theorists as insane individuals. Wikipedia again: _*For relatively rare individuals*, an obsessive compulsion to believe, prove or re-tell a conspiracy theory may indicate one or more of several well-understood psychological conditions, and other hypothetical ones: paranoia, denial, schizophrenia, mean world syndrome_ (Bold mine)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

Second, my major concern is with the pejorative use of the concept conspiracy theory. The article correctly points out that such usage is prejudicial. This has happened in this thread too. *Some of us have confused 9/11 conspiracy theories with unanswered questions about 9/11. We lumped them together. In order to win a debate, it seems that some of us are willing to pull crap like this.* It was Alex Murphy, a newcomer to the thread, who reminded us that we should avoid this type of tactics and also gave Americans a refresher on ways previous administrations have used it.  



Alex_Murphy said:


> *
> 
> People questioning what our government says is not a loony thing to do, look at the track record, Richard Nixon is a prime example, the guys at the Washington Post were called loonies and the whole government came out and said "Ignore them, they just think some big crazy... master plan is going on through the whole of government"...*
> 
> ............................
> 
> ..............................
> *A view like this, and what turned out to be true? We all know.
> There was a master government plan that forced him to resign after corruptness was exploited all over the government.
> 
> 
> So why isn't it the most logical thing to do, and look at explanations and try to answer the questions that haven't been answered and brushed under the carpet?
> 
> People who can't comprehend a posibility of a conspiracy theory, tend to believe what a government says, and is this not a good reason for governments to brand the people who ask the questions, as crazy?
> 
> ........We won't even talk about Halleburton and how much they gained from this unexpected switch to Iraq that George Bush admitted 3 days ago had "nothing" to do with 9/11.
> *



Geve, I hope this clarifies your questions.


----------



## maxiogee

Everness said:


> If I asked people who defended the former opinion to place it on the continuum, I’m sure that they would choose # 9 or even 10. If you reread the thread you’ll realize that many people believe that their opinion is based on facts no doubts whatsoever.
> 
> But then came Krauter_Fee and she shared her opinion. She believes that things don’t add up in the official version. If you reread the thread, I’m sure she would also place her opinion way up there: #9, at least.
> 
> 
> So someone is wrong and someone is right. We can’t have it both ways. We can’t have two opposite opinions on the same facts overlapping on the continuum. One has to stay there and the other one bumped down to #1 or 2, where it surely belongs.



I take it, Everness, that you have never served on a jury.
There, in a closed community, people have all heard the same evidence, all seen the same 'performances' and observed the same procedure being played out before them, and yet those twelve people regularly and routinely cannot agree on (a) simple matters of 'fact', and more understandably, (b) matters of 'reason' - motive, rationale and circumstances.

I was stunned to think, listening in the jury-room when we 'retired', that we had all sat through the same case.


----------



## geve

Everness said:


> My statement refers to one particular episode in American politics that I still have problems digesting: the reelection of W. in November of 2004. By then Americans knew that there were no WMD in Iraq and that W. had lied to us. However, we reelected him. When I say that many people trust their government too much for my taste, I was making reference to this particular shameful episode.
> 
> _[...]_
> 
> Geve, I hope this clarifies your questions.


Well, sure! If you write something making an implicit reference only known to yourself, it makes it hard to have a discussion.  
So, was this the hidden agenda of this thread, all the way through?

It seems to me that it's no longer on the topic of believing or not in conspiracy theories, or questioning the official version of events. Indeed, you say that people knew very well that they had been lied too - but reelected the lier nonetheless. So they didn't fail to question the official version (questioning it was no longer relevant since it had already been taken appart at that time), but they failed to make the decision that you think should have logically ensued.


----------



## Everness

geve said:


> Well, sure! If you write something making an implicit reference only known to yourself, it makes it hard to have a discussion.
> So, was this the hidden agenda of this thread, all the way through?



That's an unfair criticism but then life is unfair!  I made a statement that I believe can be generalized to most countries: we are too trusting and don't have an inquisitive mind when it comes to monitoring how governments conduct public business. You, in turn, stated that this doesn't apply to France. I think you're underestimating your government and overestimating your fellow citizens. But again, that's not a fact, just the humble opinion of an ethnocentric American! 



geve said:


> It seems to me that it's no longer on the topic of believing or not in conspiracy theories, or questioning the official version of events. Indeed, you say that people knew very well that they had been lied too - but reelected the lier nonetheless. So they didn't fail to question the official version (questioning it was no longer relevant since it had already been taken appart at that time), but they failed to make the decision that you think should have logically ensued.



The fact that Americans were lied to and how they handled the lie isn't the core of our discussion. I don't think that most Americans were or are concerned about the lying. Most Americans --or at least the ones who reelected Bush-- don't think they were lied to. They are under the assumption that the US government acted upon available intel. Of course I have another take on this. Cheney decided that we were going to invade Iraq and they would have come up with any other excuse to justify the invasion. But the one that made reference to the existence of WMD and that Iraq was planning to use them against us did the trick. 

So why are the polls showing growing dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq? Not because Americans are p*ssed because we were lied to but for two other important reasons: 1) The American military casualties in Iraq keep are mounting. 2) The war has proven unexpectedly costly. During 2004 and 2005, the cost to the American taxpayer was running at about $5 billion a month and by mid-2006 the cost of the total adventure had surpassed $200 billion.


----------



## curly

Everness said:


> Tony, in America you can't leave the aliens out of it. Didn't you read the article I posted?
> 
> 38% of individuals (113,828,305 Americans give or take) believe that it's likely that "The federal government is withholding proof of the existence of intelligent life from others planets."
> http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/12765
> 
> Actually, and according to other polls, ElaineB is in the minority when it comes to the significance of aliens in the American mind.
> 
> 
> 60 percent of those surveyed believe extraterrestrial life exists on other planets
> Of those who believed, most agreed that they would be “excited and hopeful” upon learning of the discovery of extraterrestrial life while 90 percent of them said Earth should reply to any message from another planet
> About eight of 10 Americans believe it is likely that intelligent aliens on other planets are more advanced than humans
> Democrats and Republicans were equally likely to believe in life on other planets, while regular churchgoers were less likely to believe in extraterrestrial life (about 46 percent) than non-churchgoers (about 70 percent)
> http://www.space.com/news/050531_alienlife_survey.html
> 
> Are aliens behind terrorist attacks? I hope they aren't. However, every time I watch Bush smirk, grimace or make strange faces on TV while trying to figure out what the heck he wants to say, I can't help wondering if extraterrestials have already taken over the White House...


I noticed that nowhere in that article did he phrase, or any variant with the same meaning, appear stating that "Aliens are here". It is quite reasonable to believe that other life exists outside the world with which we are familiar. These polls merely reflect that people believe in life, intelligent or otherwise, which is not so ridiculous. Thinking that the idea of life being capable interested or in any way likely to intereact with us is of course mere fantasy. In short I think that it's likely that life exists, but it's relavancy to our life is non-existant.


----------



## maxiogee

curly said:


> I noticed that nowhere in that article did he phrase, or any variant with the same meaning, appear stating that "Aliens are here". It is quite reasonable to believe that other life exists outside the world with which we are familiar. These polls merely reflect that people believe in life, intelligent or otherwise, which is not so ridiculous.


Indeed, and I would go further and say that to think that our is the only planet in the universe which contains life, and that we humans are the zenith of the life process, is even more ridiculous.





> Thinking that the idea of life being capable interested or in any way likely to intereact with us is of course mere fantasy.


Of course, were unearthly life to interact with earthly life, we wouldn't know if that was God or not, would we? 





> In short I think that it's likely that life exists, but it's relevancy to our life is non-existent.


. Hhhhhmmmm. I'd have agreed if you had said 'effect'. I can only vaguely imagine how life here might change were we humans to discover irrefutable proof of intelligent life having a foothold elsewhere in the universe.
The alien lifeform would probably not change life here, but the knowledge of it would change humanity for ever.


----------



## curly

maxiogee said:


> The alien lifeform would probably not change life here, but the knowledge of it would change humanity for ever.


 
I have often wondered if we would really change our xenophobic tendencies in the face of proof intelligent life.

i imagine that there are only a few things that would cause a difference in the scenarios that might take place.

1) The life is less developed than us, thus we would most likely try to dominate it.

2) The life is equally as developed as us which would lead to a war of some sort. (damn green freaks!)

3) The life is more developed. I have no idea what we would do but i presume it would be something like _mars attacks_

In any case it is academic, and probably belongs in a new thread.


----------



## maxiogee

curly said:


> 1) The life is less developed than us,
> 2) The life is equally as developed as us
> 3) The life is more developed.


If "we" become aware of it, I think one could assume that it is more developed than we are — and this is where the conspiracy theory of UFOs falls down.
Imagine that there is another "Earth" out there, as developed as we are.
We are not likely to find them, nor they us, for quite some time. We have only recently proven that there 'are' other planets outside our system. 

So, if UFOs are coming here, they're much more advanced than we are. Why do they confine their activities to remote areas and to solitary people? It's a bit like God and angels, they only seem to appear to unaccompanied people, and in ways which cannot be proven.


----------



## curly

But how else could you contact another species, it's a little like countries, you send a diplomat, to meet another diplomat. Mass appearance is impersonal and so easily discredited.

But still it's academic.


----------



## maxiogee

Diplomats are only exchanged after trade and other contacts have been established, and that often requires mass contact — usually, in the past, this involved armies.


----------



## Alxmrphi

> So, if UFOs are coming here, they're much more advanced than we are. Why do they confine their activities to remote areas and to solitary people? It's a bit like God and angels, they only seem to appear to unaccompanied people, and in ways which cannot be proven.



This does seem to be the case! Very good point maxiogee!


----------



## curly

I guess it's a little off-topic, but i wonder how we have managed to debate this when we've already established that we agree. Aliens here absurd. Aliens at all, of course.


----------



## maxiogee

curly said:


> I guess it's a little off-topic, but i wonder how we have managed to debate this when we've already established that we agree. Aliens here absurd. Aliens at all, of course.



Aliens? Or just "visiting aliens"? 
There's a big difference. 
It would be absurd to believe that there is no other life outside of the Earth, would it not?


----------



## curly

Indeed, I phrased that last post very badly.

It hard to imagine that in such a large universe there isn't any other form of life. But it is a very tangled question considering we can't really define life very well, and considering that we find organism that we must create new categories for. I have always wondered if we really would know life if we saw it.

Consider what freaks we must be. 

We are very very cold by any measure, absolute zero being a few hundred degree below zero and thinking about how hot things really can get.

The same is true for speed.

 and for density

 and size(though this can go both ways)

and probably many other things which haven't occured to me.


----------



## ireney

maxiogee said:


> So, if UFOs are coming here, they're much more advanced than we are. Why do they confine their activities to remote areas and to solitary people? It's a bit like God and angels, they only seem to appear to unaccompanied people, and in ways which cannot be proven.


 

Because they are shy postgraduate students of proctology. 



curly said:


> But how else could you contact another species, it's a little like countries, you send a diplomat, to meet another diplomat. Mass appearance is impersonal and so easily discredited.
> 
> But still it's academic.


 
Even if that was true (see maxiogee's post #177) how many countries do you think send (sent) its dimplomats on a dark night to a far-away farm house? How many made absolutely sure the locals didn't know? What would be the purpose of that?


----------



## curly

I think that alien came about for the same reason as god. Boredom, and a desire for answers to all those odd questions.

But seeing as aliens on earth is the bench mark for fruit loopery and was the butt of every deriding remark about the pentagon crash i think we should just put down the scapels and stop disecting ever little point in which this theory is absurd.

how about the theory that the moon landing never happened. i don't think i've heard anything about that for at least two days.


----------



## geve

Why, you don't want to discuss my theory? If you look around you'll see it's really not farfetched!  



geve said:


> I personally believe in the theory that dark-haired females are involved in a world-scale conspiracy aiming at the complete eradication of blondes from the surface of this planet; their first action is to try and marry as much blond guys as they can, to reduce the probability that these men's offspring has blond hair.


----------



## .   1

Everness said:


> That's an unfair criticism but then life is unfair!  I made a statement that I believe can be generalized to most countries: we are too trusting and don't have an inquisitive mind when it comes to monitoring how governments conduct public business.


Does this mean that anybody who does not believe in conspiracy theories by definition therefore implicitly trusts their government and your government?
This is just another example of extremist thinking along the lines of 'If you're not with us then you're agin us.'
If a thing is not white it is not necessarily black.  There is an entire spectrum of colour in between.

.,,


----------



## KaRiNe_Fr

geve said:


> Why, you don't want to discuss my theory? If you look around you'll see it's really not farfetched!


I believe in your theory Geve. This well known conspiracy is now so deeply settled at such a great scale that even blonds have babies with dark-haired men, so they can't give birth to other blonds... 
If this is not a proof of your conspiracy theory, I quit! 

Edit: This is to say conspiracy theory is in the eye of the beholder (as Geve claims to be blond...). This is my "theory".


----------



## Everness

Back in 2003, the Guardian Unlimited published an article entitled "Conspiracy theories. From crop circles to politics, we tell you everything you need to know about what some say really happened." 

_A recent study found that 60% of the US population believed one of the following: that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, that Saddam Hussein worked closely with the September 11 hijackers, and that most people in the world supported the war in Iraq. All are false. However, 80% of people who cited their primary news source as Fox believed at least one of the statements._

http://www.guardian.co.uk/netnotes/article/0,,1067809,00.html

Ergo, Fox is the natural antidote for wacky conspiracy theories.


----------



## Poetic Device

A lot of people think that Fox is too Right winged and one sided.  What should they look to?


----------



## maxiogee

Poetic Device said:


> A lot of people think that Fox is too Right winged and one sided.  What should they look to?



A good way to work one's way through the media jungle is to use their prejudices to guide you.
I have noticed that the more extreme the opinions, the more often they criticise their own favourite opponents. This is particularly true of the press on this side of the Atlantic, and one can see lots of 'point scoring' in articles as they moan about their favourite whipping boys.


----------



## Everness

Poetic Device said:


> A lot of people think that Fox is too Right winged and one sided.  What should they look to?



I suggest we approach this question from another angle. We need to diversify our diet when it comes to news and news analysis. Pundits are talking about cross-polination between traditional media (newspapers, radio, TV) and blogging. 

_Instead of looking at blogging and traditional journalism as rivals for readers' eyeballs, we should recognize that we're entering an era in which they complement each other, intersect with each other, play off one another. _

http://www.jdlasica.com/articles/nieman.html

I was watching Bill Maher's show last Friday and he interviewed Markos Moulitsas Zúniga who runs Daily Kos. http://www.dailykos.com/ He gets 20 million hits per day! If you read some of the discussions, you'll realize why this administration is targeting this guy.


----------



## lsp

Poetic Device said:


> A lot of people think that Fox is too Right winged and one sided.  What should they look to?



The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is the antithesis of Fox News, and ironically both camps would be proud to say so.


----------



## Everness

lsp said:


> The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is the antithesis of Fox News, and ironicaly both camps would be proud to say so.



The only difference is that Jon Stewart' show is a comedy program and Fox News is in denial about being one.


----------



## Everness

Allow me to revisit briefly an article I posted. 

_A recent study found that 60% of the US population believed one of the following: that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, that Saddam Hussein worked closely with the September 11 hijackers, and that most people in the world supported the war in Iraq. All are false. However, 80% of people who cited their primary news source as Fox believed at least one of the statements. _http://www.guardian.co.uk/netnotes/article/0,,1067809,00.html

Visualize a line. The middle point is zero. To the left, place negative numbers along the line (-1 to -5). To the right, place positive numbers (1 to 5) on the same line. Zero would be informed opinions based on facts. Hopefully, most of us are there. For instance, we believe that 9/11 was the work of terrorists because we researched the topic thoroughly and not just because Bush said so in his addresses from the White House or because CNN, Fox News, the BBC, the Washington Post, Le Figaro, the preacher, my mother, my boyfriend, etc. etc. said so. 

To the left of zero, we can place all the conspiracy theories, namely misinformed or illinformed opinions not based on facts. They are folklore or urban legend. 

However, me forgot about an important constituency: those to the right of zero. These are the people who, according to the study, believed 1) that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, 2) that Saddam Hussein worked closely with the September 11 hijackers, 3) and that most people in the world supported the war in Iraq. We come down hard on lefist conspiracy theorists because they hold beliefs not grounded in reality but for some reason these other rightist people have fallen off our radar and, most importantly, they aren't the target of our scorn and derision.

I just hope that this study was flat wrong when back in 2003 it indicated that *60% of the US population believed one of the above false statements*. If it was right, I just hope my fellow Americans got their sh*t together and if they are polled again today, just 5% would hold one of three beliefs. (I'm not really concerned if 80% of people who cited their primary news source as Fox believed at least one of the statements. That would seem more or less correct then and now.) 

If people to the left of zero are called *conspiracy theorists*, I suggest that people to the right of zero are labelled *useful idiots*.


----------



## Victoria32

Everness said:


> If people to the left of zero are called *conspiracy theorists*, I suggest that people to the right of zero are labelled *useful idiots*.


 
Yes, but if you call them that (as I did on a political message board) they get very het up!


----------



## Everness

Victoria32 said:


> Yes, but if you call them that (as I did on a political message board) they get very het up!



This dialogue took place back in 2003.

*Aide to President Bush:* Mr. President, a recent study found that 60% of the US population believed one of the following: that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, that Saddam Hussein worked closely with the September 11 hijackers, and that most people in the world supported the war in Iraq.

*President Bush:* (Smirking) I thought I was the only idiot in this country.


----------



## Outsider

Where did that piece of dialogue take place? In _The Daily Show_?


----------



## Everness

Outsider said:


> Where did that piece of dialogue take place? In _The Daily Show_?



Nope. Fox News...


----------



## Victoria32

Everness said:


> This dialogue took place back in 2003.
> 
> *Aide to President Bush:* Mr. President, a recent study found that 60% of the US population believed one of the following: that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, that Saddam Hussein worked closely with the September 11 hijackers, and that most people in the world supported the war in Iraq.
> 
> *President Bush:* (Smirking) I thought I was the only idiot in this country.


*Amazing!* (The man truly is an embarassment... )


----------



## .   1

Everness said:


> This dialogue took place back in 2003.
> 
> *Aide to President Bush:* Mr. President, a recent study found that 60% of the US population believed one of the following: that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, that Saddam Hussein worked closely with the September 11 hijackers, and that most people in the world supported the war in Iraq.
> 
> *President Bush:* (Smirking) I thought I was the only idiot in this country.


Everness
I had a quick google and could not find any reference.
Would you please supply the link?

.,,


----------



## geve

Isn't it supposed to be a joke?


----------



## .   1

geve said:


> Isn't it supposed to be a joke?


Not by the wording from Everness.

.,,


----------



## Outsider

Perhaps it's part of a new conspiracy theory.


----------



## geve

Outsider said:


> Perhaps it's part of a new conspiracy theory.


Maybe Everness was trying to demonstrate that there are no reliable sources of information on this world.  I mean, obviously that means that google isn't reliable, if it won't supply any reference to the story Everness has told us!


----------



## cuchuflete

Everness conspires with other like-minded people to create web sites that support his positions.  This can be proved by reading his posts here, and then verifying that many others agree with him on a multitude of web sites.  Many of these sites quote "studies", but fail to link to those studies.  Research design and execution is just assumed to be without bias, including sampling bias.

According to the logic of the latest batch of "a recent study shows that......." well over one hundred million marekins believe in the Tooth Fairy, as well as the pronouncements of Dubya.  They fall asleep in the arms of purple, inflatable dolls, while dreaming of the latest LIBERAL CONSPIRACY to poison our minds with lies and distortions.

They probably assume, as an article of faith, that aliens from Sarcastica, all blonde and witty, killed John Kennedy to cover up his affair with Marilyn Monroe, who wasn't a real blonde, and who was abucted by right-wing dolphins.  They read newspapers only to determine the price of a bushel of velcro on the commodity futures market.

All of the above can be studied in depth at the appropriate web sites, which opine on matters large and mostly very small.  Is a conspiracy theory an urban legend on a bad acid trip, or just poorly plotted pulp fiction?


----------



## .   1

cuchuflete said:


> Is a conspiracy theory an urban legend on a bad acid trip, or just poorly plotted pulp fiction?


A little from column A and a little from column B and to make it interesting just a dash of stoopid.

.,,


----------



## GenJen54

Hola Fellow Conspirators (or is that Constipators),

This thread is quickly moving nowhere.  Might I recommend we move back to topic lest the thread be closed?

Thank you.


----------



## .   1

GenJen54 said:


> Hola Fellow Conspirators (or is that Constipators),
> 
> This thread is quickly moving nowhere. Might I recommend we move back to topic lest the thread be closed?
> 
> Thank you.


I would like the thread to stay open long enough for Everness to substantiate the base canard alleged about The President of U.S. America.
I have no love for the man but I doubt that he would be stoopid enough to say what Everness claims.

.,,


----------



## Everness

If this exchange between the President and his aide hadn't been referenced by Harlan McCraney, President's Bush speechalist, of course I wouldn't have believed it or shared it. I had already watched McCraney in this other video (link below) and he came across as someone I could trust. So I quoted him. Maybe it was a bad call. I'm sorry for any inconveniences I could have caused. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXhGipmUkvc&mode=related&search=Andy Dick Bush


----------



## danielfranco

Everness said:


> If this exchange between the President and his aide hadn't been referenced by Harlan McCraney, President's Bush speechalist, of course I wouldn't have believed it or shared it. I had already watched McCraney in this other video (link below) and he came across as someone I could trust. So I quoted him. Maybe it was a bad call. I'm sorry for any inconveniences I could have caused.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXhGipmUkvc&mode=related&search=Andy Dick Bush


 
Ha, ha, ha! 
I love Andy Dick (Harlan McCraney), too. He's a really funny (but obnoxious) comedian!!
It was great watching George W. also doing his bit for the sake of comedy...


----------



## GenJen54

Tha-tha-that's all, folks!


----------

