Why do we flat out reject CT's? [Conspiracy Theories]

[Stink Fish Pot]

Do CT's make people nervous, spooked, or some other feeling of insecurity that requires most (not all, obviously) to reject them out-of-hand?

On this board specifically, people are shouted down at even the slightest hint of a CT. Many of these involve our government (US). to suggest a CT meets with immediate derision, and membership into the tin-foil hat club.

There are a number of events out there that I think prove that the US govt had manipulated events for its own good (come on, now.. What govt. Hasn't?). These events, once the American people have bought into them, give the mandate for action the president or current administration desires. Two examples come to mind immediately:

The Gulf of Tonkin "incident", and Iraq's WMD program. Are we all so convinced that our govt wouldn't lie to us that even these two historical events are not considered conspiracies? Why? Because they got caught?

If we accept that the govt. HAS manipulated events to pursue the unannounced goal, why are we hard pressed to believe that other things that happen are not also parts of a CT?

Is it something psychological in us as Americans that don't want to see ourselves (and as an extension of ourselves, the goverment) as cheaters, no better than say the USSR, who were masters of propaganda and never told their people the truth? Well, what IS the truth? Only what the government is telling us?

I'm also curious if readers from other countries have the same CT phenomenon in their country as well?

[Stratocaster]

I don't accept a fantastic assertion without evidence. That's all there is to it.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Stink Fish Pot

The Gulf of Tonkin "incident", and Iraq's WMD program. Are we all so convinced that our govt wouldn't lie to us that even these two historical events are not considered conspiracies? Why? Because they got caught?

IMHO, yes. As soon as a conspiracy is demonstrated to be true, people stop calling it a "conspiracy" they call it all sorts of other things, but seldom that. Which makes "conspiracies are never true" self-fulfilling; conspiracies aren't true because if they are, then they aren't a conspiracy.

[El_Kabong]

If we accept that the govt. HAS manipulated events to pursue the unannounced goal, why are we hard pressed to believe that other things that happen are not also parts of a CT?

Firstly, I contest that people ridicule some CTs simply because they don't want to accept a possibility that counters their perceived reality. In my experience, people mostly make fun of them then when they have a level of education or technical expertise that allows them to clearly identify the errors or non-factual claims in the CT argument.

CT theories and documented causes of events are simply not perfect equivalents that one may pick and choose to believe equally. Things like the 9/11 theories and the Birther nonsense make no logical sense, have no real evidence of any kind to support them, and rely on scientific, engineering and/or behavioral absurdities that rob them of any air of even remote plausibility. They are ridiculed because they are, at bottom, ridiculous.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by El_Kabong

CT theories and documented causes of events are simply not perfect equivalents that one may pick and choose to believe equally. Things like the 9/11 theories and the Birther nonsense make no logical sense, have no real evidence of any kind to support them, and rely on scientific, engineering and/or behavioral absurdities that rob them of any air of even remote plausibility. They are ridiculed because they are, at bottom, ridiculous.

Part of our problem is that we use the same term to refer to two very different things. There's theories about conspiracies that are based on at least some genuine evidence, that make sense for the alleged conspirators to do, and that the alleged conspirators could actually have pulled off; theories that make or may not be true, but are at least rational to consider. And then there's the quasi-religious conspiracies theories like Birtherism or Truthers or the fake moon landing, which make no sense, aren't based on evidence, typically both couldn't be achieved by the accused if they wanted to, and make no sense for the accused to try anyway, and are faith based beliefs for which every bit of evidence against them are typically just taken as proof of how pervasive the conspiracy is.

[Robot Arm]

Originally Posted by El_Kabong

CT theories and documented causes of events are simply not perfect equivalents that one may pick and choose to believe equally. Things like the 9/11 theories and the Birther nonsense make no logical sense, have no real evidence of any kind to support them, and rely on scientific, engineering and/or behavioral absurdities that rob them of any air of even remote plausibility. They are ridiculed because they are, at bottom, ridiculous.

(bolding mine)

The classic conspiracy theory doesn't really put forth any facts of its own, just questions based on the belief that some part of the actual events is impossible or improbable. (Oswald couldn't have made that shot, the astronauts wouldn't survive the radiation on the way to the moon, buildings only fall straight down in a controlled demolition. What else are they hiding from us?) But the CT is never held up to the same scrutiny. Real people can't perform some unlikely action, but the perpetrators of the conspiracy can do anything; even events they could not predict or control happen perfectly to bring about their desired end.

For an example of a conspiracy that did come apart, read up on the tale of the Glomar Explorer.

[XT]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs, and most CTs don't even have marginal proofs, but instead rely on wild speculation and conjecture, in most cases using ignorance or lies, out right or through omission and everything in between. THAT is what gets ridiculed or dismissed around here. If you have some examples of CTs you (the OP) feel are valid pr worth a second look then by all means let's see them. To be sure, conspiracies do happen in real life. Look at the Foed Pinto for example...or Iran-Contra. The difference is both these conspiracies actually happened, and there is real hard evidence concerning them...which is why they aren't CTs, but instead examples of real conspiracies.

-XT

[BrainGlutton]

Of course conspiracies exist. That is why Anglo-American common law considers "criminal conspiracy" a crime, and that long predates American independence. But it just goes to conspiring to commit a particular crime. Conspiracy theories generally are far more incredible than that -- they posit some all-explanatory underground organization or something that has been manipulating events from behind the scenes for decades or centuries. It is all bound up with the "devil theory," that everything that goes wrong in human affairs is the work of the clever and malevolent [Communists, capitalists, Jews, Freemasons, whatever]. See "The Paranoid Style in American Politics," by Richard Hofstadter; and Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where It Comes From, by Daniel Pipes.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by Stink Fish Pot

On this board specifically, people are shouted down at even the slightest hint of a CT. Many of these involve our government (US). to suggest a CT meets with immediate derision, and membership into the tin-foil hat club.

Understand that a Conspiracy Theory, (capitalized), is different from a conspiracy. The phrase Conspiracy Theory refers explicitly to odd claims that require inordinate amounts of clandestine effort that seem to be missed by any authorized investgating agency.

To compare: there was a conspiracy (lower case) to use hijacked airplanes to attack the World Trade Center and Pentagon in September, 2001. It was a genuine conspiracy that was successfully planned and executed. We do not call it a (capitalized) Conspircay Theory because we know enough about it, (even if not everything about it), to recognize who planned the actions, who carried out the plans, and how the plans were executed.

In contrast, various Conspiracy Theories have been put forth that require secret forces to carry out improbable, (and often impossible), actions in ways that fooled every official investigator into thinking something different happened. Those various CTs require that massive amounts of explosives were planted in the WTC while no one noticed it was happening or that thermite changed its chemical properties to explode rather than burn, or that a missile was fired at the Pentagon, or that all the people on four airliners were whisked away to a secret location and held captive indefinitely in order to disguise the fact that three airplanes were flown into buildings and one into the ground rather than simply having the planes and their passengers be destroyed in the crashes for which we have numerous witnesses and quite a bit of film or video along with physical evidence.

To achieve the status of Conspiracy Theory, an idea or an odd hypothesis has to be floated and then rabidly defended, even when it is clear that it makes no sense. Once an idea has already been shown to be loony, it then becomes a CT--and those we reject out of hand.

[Ambivalid]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Part of our problem is that we use the same term to refer to two very different things. There's theories about conspiracies that are based on at least some genuine evidence, that make sense for the alleged conspirators to do, and that the alleged conspirators could actually have pulled off; theories that make or may not be true, but are at least rational to consider. And then there's the quasi-religious conspiracies theories like Birtherism or Truthers or the fake moon landing, which make no sense, aren't based on evidence, typically both couldn't be achieved by the accused if they wanted to, and make no sense for the accused to try anyway, and are faith based beliefs for which every bit of evidence against them are typically just taken as proof of how pervasive the conspiracy is.

You give good examples for the latter type of CT-the easily dismissed variety-yet you give no example of the former type of CT; of which you describe in fairly detailed fashion. What are some of these feasible conspiracy theories that you say get muddled together with the wild-eyed variety?

[fumster]

Originally Posted by El_Kabong

Things like the 9/11 theories and the Birther nonsense make no logical sense, have no real evidence of any kind to support them, and rely on scientific, engineering and/or behavioral absurdities that rob them of any air of even remote plausibility. They are ridiculed because they are, at bottom, ridiculous.

This is it on the nose. A CT that Oswald was payed by "someone" because of "something" is possible, though it needs to have something to back it up to be taken seriously. A CT that says that Oswald was not the shooter, however, is just silly given the huge amount of evidence that shows him purchasing the gun, posing with it in a picture, carrying a long package to work that day, etc.

[Stink Fish Pot]

I'll throw an example out to you all that I believe has some truth behind it, and yet is lumped in with the other 9/11 conspiracies.

I've always believed the 4th plane, Flight 93, was brought down by the American Government, NOT by some heroic people on board.

If I get some time tomorrow, I'll dig up the website that documented all of the local news stories and interviews from that day by the local area papers. Shanksville is not a big town, and a number of small towns that are adjacent to Shanksville had articles in their small papers by local writers of an unmarked, white plane that was seen in the area right before the crash.

According to the FAA, no other planes were in the air at the time, but the plane was seen by various people who had no reason to lie. No money inducements, no book deals, no claims to fame. Just everyday people relaying what they saw in the sky that day.

I have no problem believing this, since the plane was headed toward a large population center and should have not been permitted to reach their target. What a better way to handle the issue than to bring it down in a large field, with little to no chance of hitting anything on the ground?

Now, there may have been some people that tried to take over the plane, I don't know. I've never heard any "official recordings", although I did remember seeing a couple of the relatives of these people relating the story, the last calls, etc. Perhaps that DID happen too. But shooting the plane down was the only way to guarantee a minimal damage scenario.

Why would the government cover this up? Well, in my opinion, the story of the heroes, the everyday people willing to sacrifice their lives to save others, is great press. It also plants the seed in everyone's mind that if another terrorist tries to take down a plane, the passengers will most likely take every action possible to wrestle control of the plane. Also, a much more cynical side of me says that the government did not want to deal with the possible lawsuits that would have inevitably sprung up as a result of their shooting down an unarmed civilian aircraft.

This coverup (if it actually was one) makes perfect sense to me. But it does fall under the definition of a CT, since this doesn't agree with the official version of events, and it would take more than one person to keep the 'truth' from coming to light.

Am I a tin foil hat wearer? maybe. Do I believe all the other things that happened during 9/11 that others are pushing forward? no. Do I know the truth? No, and I probably never will.

[Bryan Ekers]

Okay, now show us some evidence of damage to Flight 93 from guns or a missile.

[Robot Arm]

Originally Posted by Stink Fish Pot

If I get some time tomorrow, I'll dig up the website that documented all of the local news stories and interviews from that day by the local area papers. Shanksville is not a big town, and a number of small towns that are adjacent to Shanksville had articles in their small papers by local writers of an unmarked, white plane that was seen in the area right before the crash.

I can think of a few things that make this theory unlikely. There's evidence from the data and voice recorders of the attempt by passengers to retake the plane. Also, the data recorder shows the flight at 5,000 feet altitude, then climbing to 10,000 before the rapid descent into the ground. If another plane was in position to shoot it down, I don't know if anyone would have seen it clearly enough to describe it as white and unmarked. I suppose the recorder data could have been faked, but you now have to bring the NTSB accident investigation branch into the cover up.

But consider that there might have been an unmarked, white airplane. There wasn't time to paint out the markings once the hijackings started. It must have been stationed somewhere, and prepared for this sort of mission. And since the government couldn't have known where such a plane would be needed, there must have been others stationed around the country. And they would all need pilots, maintenance, fuel, weapons, etc.

For your theory to be viable, it quickly encompasses many more people than you think.

[Chimera]

The stated aims of many Conspiracy Theories are in direct conflict with the interests of the alleged players, or require total secrecy by far too many players over an infinite duration and absolute non-verification by outside parties.

For example, rich and powerful people have zero need or desire to reduce the rest of the world to serfdom, destroying nations and economies in the name of power. Their wealth and comfort is dependent on the status quo and our ability to continue to produce the level of technology and goods that we currently produce.

There would be zero point in faking a moon landing. The point of the program was a logical extension of both the arms race with the Soviets and our interest in space technology. There was a ton of money to be spent on such a program. Faking it and declaring victory would be extremely pointless in the overall pursuit of space capabilities and would be incredibly destructive to our government, nation and reputation if discovered. It would simply rely on far too many people maintaining perpetual silence, and require that certain pieces of information never ever be verified by independent parties. (Like the fact that we have powerful enough telescopes to SEE the landing sites on the Moon now.)

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by Stink Fish Pot

I'll throw an example out to you all that I believe has some truth behind it, and yet is lumped in with the other 9/11 conspiracies.

I've always believed the 4th plane, Flight 93, was brought down by the American Government, NOT by some heroic people on board.

If I get some time tomorrow, I'll dig up the website that documented all of the local news stories and interviews from that day by the local area papers. Shanksville is not a big town, and a number of small towns that are adjacent to Shanksville had articles in their small papers by local writers of an unmarked, white plane that was seen in the area right before the crash.

According to the FAA, no other planes were in the air at the time, but the plane was seen by various people who had no reason to lie. No money inducements, no book deals, no claims to fame. Just everyday people relaying what they saw in the sky that day.
. . .
Am I a tin foil hat wearer? maybe.

What sort of "white plane" was reported? A Cessna 152 that could have taken off and landed from any number of uncontrolled airfields without ever registering on the FAA radar? So what? "White plane" is vague enough to be true. (It could even describe Flight 93, itself, given that at times it was flying well out of the usual flight paths at a much lower altitude than people whould have been expecting to see an airliner. (I know the the UAL colors included blue, but a plane seen against a bright blue sky might only show the white surfaces to a ground observer who was not familiar with watching planes.)

Then there is the matter of the crash, itself. We have all sorts of examples of large airliners being shot down, from Korean Air Flight 007 by paranoid Soviets to Iranian Air Flight 655 by the trigger-happy USS Vincennes, with any number of others. None of them flew directly into the ground, intact until the crash. All of them left debris scattered over the area below which they were hit by guns or missiles. How did we manage to bring down Flight 93 without any similar evidence of the attack?

Do you wear a tinfoil hat? It depends on whether you actually have ever bothered to look at evidence and decided to reject it or whether you just think that your scenario is plausible, but haven't spent a lot of time thinking about it.

[Marley23]

By the time an idea has reached Conspiracy Theory status, it's become an enormous and ridiculously complex plot supported by little or no evidence and a lot of the time it doesn't even make much sense, and that doesn't matter because people don't believe in it based on the evidence. They believe in it because the truth just doesn't feel right to them. Common sense and parsimony get thrown out the window and any evidence that contradicts the theory is simply woven into the narrative as part of the coverup. Robert Anton Wilson noted long ago that if you believe in some of these enormous plots, how can you even trust the evidence that points to the plot? If the conspiracy pulled off the coverup, they might have faked your evidence, too.

Originally Posted by Stink Fish Pot

I've always believed the 4th plane, Flight 93, was brought down by the American Government, NOT by some heroic people on board.

It's not the most insane or implausible conspiracy theory out there, but it still lacks evidence.

According to the FAA, no other planes were in the air at the time

Not true. The FAA says it asked a plane that was landing nearby to take a look at the damage.

Originally Posted by Popular Mechanics

There was such a jet in the vicinity—a Dassault Falcon 20 business jet owned by the VF Corp. of Greensboro, N.C., an apparel company that markets Wrangler jeans and other brands. The VF plane was flying into Johnstown-Cambria airport, 20 miles north of Shanksville. According to David Newell, VF's director of aviation and travel, the FAA's Cleveland Center contacted copilot Yates Gladwell when the Falcon was at an altitude "in the neighborhood of 3000 to 4000 ft."—not 34,000 ft. "They were in a descent already going into Johnstown," Newell adds. "The FAA asked them to investigate and they did. They got down within 1500 ft. of the ground when they circled. They saw a hole in the ground with smoke coming out of it. They pinpointed the location and then continued on." Reached by PM, Gladwell confirmed this account but, concerned about ongoing harassment by conspiracy theorists, asked not to be quoted directly.

Originally Posted by Stink Fish Pot

the plane was seen by various people who had no reason to lie. No money inducements, no book deals, no claims to fame. Just everyday people relaying what they saw in the sky that day.

This is naive and not really relevant, and while I'm not accusing you of anything, Conspiracy Theorists love to use these kinds of statements to disingenuous effect. You have no idea what their motivations were. They may have honestly believed they saw another plane, they may have been nuts or attention whores, hoped to sell a good story to gullible people, or any number of other things. That to the side, asserting the purity of their motives does not say anything about whether or not they are correct. Other people saw the plane crash and said nothing about seeing it shot down, and I don't think those people had an obvious reason to lie either.

[Bryan Ekers]

You guys are making it too complicated. Let him address the simple issue first: "Okay, now show us some evidence of damage to Flight 93 from guns or a missile." If he can't address that, a bare minimal standard for evidence that Flight 93 was shot down, all these other issues are moot.

[Robot Arm]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

You guys are making it too complicated. Let him address the simple issue first: "Okay, now show us some evidence of damage to Flight 93 from guns or a missile." If he can't address that, a bare minimal standard for evidence that Flight 93 was shot down, all these other issues are moot.

Since this thread is about conspiracy theories in general, I think the other questions about this one are valid as examples of how CTs aren't held up to the same scrutiny as the events they attempt to explain. Could the government have one unmarked plane, paid for and maintained off the books, hidden in Western Pennsylvania around the time of 9/11? Maybe. But think of all that that entails. If the theory is true, remember, the government did not know about the hijackings in advance. So, either they got incredibly lucky and their one unmarked plane was in the right place at the right time, or there must have been similar planes deployed around the country.

That's one of the things that I think distinguishes a Conspiracy Theory; that it must be improbably far-reaching, or impossibly prepared and acting on information they couldn't have had to manage events that they couldn't foresee.

[supery00n]

Specifically regarding the 9/11 attacks, I think that conspiracy theorists underestimate how hard it is to anticipate and prevent an organization from committing some act, such as an assassination, terrorist attack, and so on, and overestimate how hard it is for the assassins/terrorists, who are fanatics in their cause and need to succeed only once, to plan and execute their acts. The government needs to spread out its security and intelligence all over the possible threat space whereas the terrorist "specializes" and can identify that blind spot.

[BigT]

We jump on Conspiracy Theories because they are, by definition, based on ignorance. If there is actual evidence, we don't call it a Conspiracy Theory. The whole point of the word theory in all that is not the scientific use, but the colloquial use of "something that sounds plausible."

We are a board devoted to fighting ignorance. Of course we're going scoff at someone who is using ignorance to support a proposition.

[FinnAgain]

Remember that another hallmark of many CT's is that they revolve around the action of Genius Fools. Here we've got a conspiracy that somehow managed to intercept Flight 93 and destroy it, but then they don't take credit for the competent and well trained US pilots who downed it in order to protect America, or claiming that they made brief (but unrecorded) radio contact during which the good, brave American men on the plane stated that the terrorists were fighting back and the might soon lose control of the cockpit so please, do what's right and down the plane. Instead, they create an elaborate conspiracy and have the pilot who flew the sortie sworn to secrecy, and all the base personnel who saw a fighter take off and return low on ammunition sworn to secrecy, and all their wives, girlfriends, drinking buddies and confidants. And all the experts who analyzed the wreckage were in on it, too. And there has been not one whistle blower after more than a decade.

All that, because on 9/11 of all fucking days, they couldn't have said "we were forced to destroy Flight 93 in order to save thousands more American lives, their sacrifice will always be remembered."

[Acid Lamp]

Lack of objective, repeatable evidence. The same reason to reject any wild idea or religious theory for that matter.

Lets look at a classic CT. "The government is covering up evidence of extraterrestrial visitors!"

Okay, on the surface this seems plausible. After all, given the general level of education and religiosity in America at the moment, announcing such an event would probably cause panic. Additionally, up until very recently, the Government has been pretty good about keeping certain things secret.

When you start looking objectively at it though, it all starts to fall apart. It assumes that the US government has the capability to track and respond to every single ET event before it becomes a major public incident. It assumes that the ET's are either complicit in this or are able to be overwhelmed by the Govt. despite having technology that allows them to travel the stars. It assumes that ALL other world govts. are also in on this. It assumes that despite the vast ubiquity of cell phone cameras, nobody has been able to get a better video than a blurry one of flashing lights. Hell, it assumes that all ET's are inherently benevolent and non hostile for that matter. All of THOSE points assume the ET's are visiting us regularly, that they exist, and have technology that we currently are unsure is even physically possible by our rapidly solidifying theory of physics.

See? There just isn't much there to actually chew on other than hypothesis. Regardless of how plausible the idea is, with nothing to back it up it all falls apart when viewed in the context of Occam's Razor.

It is more likely that :

ET's Don't exist
ET's Cannot visit us due to problems of distance
ET's COULD visit us but simply Choose not to
Most ET event are mistaken identity or delusion

ANY of that is more plausible than the CT. Thus without any objective evidence to the contrary there is no reason to give further credence to the least plausible option.

[jtgain]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

All that, because on 9/11 of all fucking days, they couldn't have said "we were forced to destroy Flight 93 in order to save thousands more American lives, their sacrifice will always be remembered."

This is it for me. The government admits that a fighter was en route to intercept Flight 93 and Bush had given the order to shoot the plane down, but it crashed before the fighter could intercept it.

Since all of that is admitted, why would they cover up the fact it was shot down if it indeed was?

[Shodan]

If you work at it hard enough, you can always come up with a theory that fits the known facts better than the truth.

Reality is messy and inconclusive. People make mistakes, witnesses change details in their stories, some things you never do figure out. Conspiracy theories are neat and tidy and all wrapped up. That's appealing.

People think what they see on TV is real. That makes it easy to treat the latest CT as another docu-drama.

And people, to a greater or lesser degree, decide what they want to believe and then look around for evidence to justify it, especially in politics. Birthers are mostly on the right; the "Bush knew!" and Diebold conspiracy crackpots are on the left.

Add a good big dose of "the fact that there's no evidence proves the conspiracy exists", the ability of the Internet to spread rumors world-wide in moments, and you get - well, what we have now.

SOP.

Regards,
Shodan

[Musicat]

Originally Posted by Robot Arm

Since this thread is about conspiracy theories in general, I think the other questions about this one are valid as examples of how CTs aren't held up to the same scrutiny as the events they attempt to explain. Could the government have one unmarked plane, paid for and maintained off the books, hidden in Western Pennsylvania around the time of 9/11? Maybe. But think of all that that entails. If the theory is true, remember, the government did not know about the hijackings in advance. So, either they got incredibly lucky and their one unmarked plane was in the right place at the right time, or there must have been similar planes deployed around the country.

Everyone who is not dumb or blind knows the US government planned the entire 9/11 thing. They knew where flight 93 would be and on what day, so they painted out the markings on a small Cessna, installed air-to-air missiles on it and parked it near Shanksville.

They also hired Todd Beamer and bought him a ticket on flight 93, telling him he was going to Disneyland for an all-expense paid vacation. They gave him an envelope of instructions, and told him not to open it until over Pennsylvania. The instructions told him to storm the cockpit and what to say.

When flight 93 was in the right place, the little white plane with missles took off and tried to shoot down the airliner, but the explosives planted in advance went off first. When the white plane's pilot landed, he was whisked away by the CIA and sent to Yucca Mountain. The plane was dismantled and the dismantlers whisked away to Yucca Mountain to join the others.

The whiskers were whisked away too.

Todd Beamer survived the crash and is now being held at Yucca Mountain.

Then operatives on the ground, hired in advance and sworn to secrecy, gathered at the crash site and bulldozed all the scattered debris to one spot and dug a hole to cover up the fact that it exploded in mid-air.

Finally, all the workers were transported to Yucca Mountain, where they are to this day, playing cards, watching movies and enjoying hookers until the next government coverup operation.

[WhyNot]

Why do we flat out reject CT's? [Conspiracy Theories]

Because I can't get 9 people in my office coordinated to order lunch in fewer than two hours because they're constantly derailing the process bitching about the menu chosen and/or gossiping about the latest employee who quit. I simply don't believe that dozens or hundreds of people can work together effectively and secretly for very long. Conspire? Sure. But someone will blab, sooner rather than later, and then...

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

IMHO, yes. As soon as a conspiracy is demonstrated to be true, people stop calling it a "conspiracy" they call it all sorts of other things, but seldom that. Which makes "conspiracies are never true" self-fulfilling; conspiracies aren't true because if they are, then they aren't a conspiracy.

this.

[jtgain]

Originally Posted by WhyNot

Because I can't get 9 people in my office coordinated to order lunch in fewer than two hours because they're constantly derailing the process bitching about the menu chosen and/or gossiping about the latest employee who quit. I simply don't believe that dozens or hundreds of people can work together effectively and secretly for very long. Conspire? Sure. But someone will blab, sooner rather than later, and then...

This.

History is filled with conspiracies. The Lincoln Assassination was one. When we talk about CTs like the 9/11 government conspiracies, the Kennedy assassination, the moon-hoaxers and the like, the number of people who would have to be involved is so massive as to make the whole theory ridiculous.

And not only that, but everything in these complex, twisting plots would have to be executed flawlessly. What if at the moment of the fatal head shot from the grassy knoll, some random passerby grabbed the shooter? That blows the whole theory out of the water by one stupid dumb luck (but very possible) chance.

And these conspirators were so brilliant that they deceived the Warren Commission, the FBI, and the public, but left little easter eggs so that some guy running a website out of his Mom's basement could figure out the truth.

Not to insult any posters, but I think that is the dynamic that comes into play with most of these theories. Some guy with a poor lot in life thinks that he has outsmarted everyone by discovering that the moon landing was fake. It gives him a sense of purpose in life.

[Damuri Ajashi]

A lot of times its because the person making the claim is a well known nutjob.

[lawoot]

I like the advice that Penn & Teller gave on Bullshit! regarding conspiracy theories - look at Watergate - that was a REAL conspiracy, and look how quickly it fell apart, because people couldn't keep their mouths shut. Now look at how many people are supposedly involved with the moon landing "hoax", or 9/11. Some of those require hundreds, if not thousands of people being involved in hiding the truth. Yet no one has come forward.

[Shodan]

Somebody once said that so many people needed to be involved in a successful JFK assassination, that it ceased to be a conspiracy and started to approach "majority rule".

Unfortunately, you can't argue that way with a true CT believer. The fact that no conspiracy is revealed is evidence that there was a successful conspiracy.

Regards,
Shodan

[Wendell Wagner]

I like reading books which have titles like Everything You Know Is Wrong (which is actually the title of one of them). They might summarize a hundred different conspiracy theories. Each of those theories has a little bit of evidence in its favor, stretched out by a lot of speculation and often by some making up of facts. I can't say that I find it completely impossible that one of those theories is right. Indeed, of the hundred theories that are given in such books, I suspect that one of them is substantially right, another four aren't right but offer some useful perspective on what's going on in the world, and the other ninety-five are just ridiculous, making no contribution to understanding how things work. The problem is that there's no way for me to figure out which one of those hundred theories is the correct one short of spending my entire life on investigating it.

So why should I spend any significant time on a theory with such a tiny chance of being true when there is so much more reasonably substantiated facts to learn about? I want to say to any believer in a conspiracy theory, "Yeah, your little bit of evidence is interesting. Why should I spend any time on your conspiracy theory and not on any of the vast number of others? Why don't you believe in all the other conspiracy theories? If you believe that a little bit of evidence means that you can spend your life pushing your theory on everyone, why don't you believe that it means that everyone else should be doing that with their theories too? I'm sorry, but I have better things to do with my life than spending more than a couple of minutes listening to your rather slim evidence."

[Musicat]

Originally Posted by Wendell Wagner

So why should I spend any significant time on a theory with such a tiny chance of being true when there is so much more reasonably substantiated facts to learn about? I want to say to any believer in a conspiracy theory, "Yeah, your little bit of evidence is interesting. Why should I spend any time on your conspiracy theory and not on any of the vast number of others? Why don't you believe in all the other conspiracy theories?

Sadly, many people who believe in one CT do believe in others. It seems to be a mindset, as pointed out by Carl Sagan in The Demon Haunted World. When Carl steps into a NYC cab, he finds the cabbie believes all the weird theories, but discounts the valid ones.

[Bozuit]

Originally Posted by Robot Arm

But consider that there might have been an unmarked, white airplane. There wasn't time to paint out the markings once the hijackings started. It must have been stationed somewhere, and prepared for this sort of mission. And since the government couldn't have known where such a plane would be needed, there must have been others stationed around the country. And they would all need pilots, maintenance, fuel, weapons, etc.

Originally Posted by tomndebb

What sort of "white plane" was reported?

The lack of white plane doesn't make it less likely that Flight 93 was deliberately shot down. I'm not saying it was shot down, but the "white plane" could be unrelated or just embellishment of real facts.

[Stink Fish Pot]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

What sort of "white plane" was reported? A Cessna 152 that could have taken off and landed from any number of uncontrolled airfields without ever registering on the FAA radar? So what? "White plane" is vague enough to be true. (It could even describe Flight 93, itself, given that at times it was flying well out of the usual flight paths at a much lower altitude than people whould have been expecting to see an airliner. (I know the the UAL colors included blue, but a plane seen against a bright blue sky might only show the white surfaces to a ground observer who was not familiar with watching planes.)

Tom,

I just had a moment and started skimming the replies to this topic. I should have spelled out what kind of plane a bit clearer. My apologies for the confusion.

According to witnesses, the plane was described as similar in look and style to a Lear jet, or a private corporate jet. Planes like this are supposedly owned and used by govt agencies like the ATF and DEA (I'm making no claim that either one of these agencies was involved.). I will assume that if the DEA and ATF own them, the DoD can also. One other item I seem to remember from the articles in the papers was that the plane had no identification markings of any kind (10 + years ago, so I could be pulling this out of some broken or damaged memory cell in my brain) If you remember, that day was beautiful and there were no visibility issues.

I would also like to add that a plane of this variety could easily be fitted with an air-to-air missile system that could launch a sidewinder or similar weapon to take out a passenger liner.

[Little Nemo]

A theory needs evidence. Conspiracy theories get dismissed when they fail to produce that evidence. If a conspiracy theory is able to produce evidence that it's true (like the Tonkin Gulf incident) then it stops being a conspiracy theory and becomes an accepted part of history.

And it's not enough to claim that you have a piece of evidence. You have to show that your theory has more evidence to support it than the accepted mainstream theory has.

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by Stink Fish Pot

supposedly owned [...] I will assume [...] could easily be fitted

Ladies n' gentlemen, we give you a CT in the wild.

[Stink Fish Pot]

Hi all,

I found one site that has quite a bit of the information I've been discussing. I don't know when this was updated last, but a quick read of one of the pages seemed to indicate that some advertisers wrote some ad copy in some of the paragraphs, which seems to be an effective way to force me to read something I'd probably skip over. Here is the homepage to one of the sites I remember from a decade ago

If you select "mystery jet" and "eyewitnesses", I think you will find some interesting stuff.

I also realized today that I know someone that lives in that area, but I've never spoken to them about it. I'm not sure if they lived there in 2001, but it's worth a phone call to find out. (I recognized their small town's name in one of the articles). I hope they did live there and can shed some light on it one way or the other. That would be pretty cool!

I think you will find it to be interesting reading.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by jtgain

Not to insult any posters, but I think that is the dynamic that comes into play with most of these theories. Some guy with a poor lot in life thinks that he has outsmarted everyone by discovering that the moon landing was fake. It gives him a sense of purpose in life.

I think this is a key factor. Conspiracy theories are like a shortcut to knowledge.

Let's say you want to be an expert on history. The conventional way is to spend decades reading hundreds of books. And even then there are going to be other people who have learned more than you and can challenge your expertise.

Or you can read one book that says it contains the real truth and all the other books are lies. If you accept this then you now know more than everyone else. All the knowledge they have is meaningless so you're ahead of them.

[Stink Fish Pot]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

Ladies n' gentlemen, we give you a CT in the wild.

Touché!

[Stink Fish Pot]

My favorite quote from the "Mystery jet" section.

Earlier Thursday, FBI Special Agent William Crowley said investigators could not rule out that a second plane was nearby during the crash. He later said he had misspoken. He dismissed rumors that a U.S. military jet had intercepted the plane before it could strike a target in Washington, D.C. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, President Bush's nominee for chairman of the joint chiefs of staff rejected rumors that the military had shot down the hijacked plane.

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by Stink Fish Pot

I would also like to add that a plane of this variety could easily be fitted with an air-to-air missile system that could launch a sidewinder or similar weapon to take out a passenger liner.

The "insignificant" details on this are that the private plane flying by was identified, and you can easily fit air to air missile system on a Lear jet, but you are making a mess of the frame and aerodynamics, it is better to just not pretend and the easiest thing to do would be to have a fighter closing in.

And for what reasons would the USA prepare a private plane with such a weapon system? This is sounding like if there is a "Q" from the James Bond movies in the USAF that is omniscient and capable of making a weapon that is peculiarly specific for the mission.

That is really laughable and even comedians have a trouble with specific inventions that are not used again that save the day.

(NSFW language, Eddie Izzard making fun of James Bond inventions, (now with Legos!))
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fui3H8j6phY

[Bozuit]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

And it's not enough to claim that you have a piece of evidence. You have to show that your theory has more evidence to support it than the accepted mainstream theory has.

I disagree; I think it's reasonable to begin to open your mind once there is only enough evidence to suggest there is reasonable doubt. If there really is a government conspiracy (on any issue) the evidence is not likely to fall into someone's lap. To prove theories - especially those that go against accepted facts - right you often need a point where some evidence arouses enough interest to lead to more evidence. If you shout everything down before there is enough evidence to suggest it is the most likely scenario then it will be hard to challenge anything.

[Stink Fish Pot]

Many of you have made excellent points regarding CT's, and how they might begin to gain traction while at the same time lacking critical evidence to support it. And I think many of the CT's out there fall into this pattern. The "faked" moon landings, for example.

I will answer some of the questions/thoughts posted in this thread in this post. I do want to make clear though that even though I brought up flight 93 as an example, we do not have to continue to discuss this one. We can, of course, but this thread was started to be a more general question about CT's and the psychology behind them.

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Okay, now show us some evidence of damage to Flight 93 from guns or a missile.

I don't see how this is possible based on how the plane went into the ground. There is no plane left.

Originally Posted by Robot Arm

I can think of a few things that make this theory unlikely. There's evidence from the data and voice recorders of the attempt by passengers to retake the plane. Also, the data recorder shows the flight at 5,000 feet altitude, then climbing to 10,000 before the rapid descent into the ground. If another plane was in position to shoot it down, I don't know if anyone would have seen it clearly enough to describe it as white and unmarked. I suppose the recorder data could have been faked, but you now have to bring the NTSB accident investigation branch into the cover up.

But consider that there might have been an unmarked, white airplane. There wasn't time to paint out the markings once the hijackings started. It must have been stationed somewhere, and prepared for this sort of mission. And since the government couldn't have known where such a plane would be needed, there must have been others stationed around the country. And they would all need pilots, maintenance, fuel, weapons, etc.

For your theory to be viable, it quickly encompasses many more people than you think.

You make some excellent points. However, many of the points you make could be explained. This is where without actual proof, things quickly fall apart... But it doesn't exactly negate the CT. It just makes it harder to get people to believe it, while giving a CT detractor more ammunition. For example, you make a great point about the plane and the logistics.

However, it can be explained. Let's say that the govt would have a few of these planes set aside for emergencies. The activities surrounding the planes are classified, and those associated with the projects are sworn to secrecy. It could easily be plausible, but because people are unwilling to face the consequences of breaking the law by telling what they know, the truth remains unknown (I'm not saying this is the case, I'm just throwing it out there). The us govt. Supports untold numbers of classified projects, most of which will never be known by anyone but the participants. And that's a good thing. Personally, I believe the security requirements of these things keeps the US safer by never showing our hand unless we have to. Unfortunately, this system of secrecy can also be abused, and things can get lost or covered up under the premise of National Security.

Originally Posted by Marley23

By the time an idea has reached Conspiracy Theory status, it's become an enormous and ridiculously complex plot supported by little or no evidence and a lot of the time it doesn't even make much sense, and that doesn't matter because people don't believe in it based on the evidence. They believe in it because the truth just doesn't feel right to them. Common sense and parsimony get thrown out the window and any evidence that contradicts the theory is simply woven into the narrative as part of the coverup. Robert Anton Wilson noted long ago that if you believe in some of these enormous plots, how can you even trust the evidence that points to the plot? If the conspiracy pulled off the coverup, they might have faked your evidence, too.

I agree with this point, and think it's the main reason CTs can get so much traction. If Someone believes that the US faked the moon landings, no amnt. Of real proof will convince them otherwise,.

Originally Posted by Marley23

Not true. The FAA says it asked a plane that was landing nearby to take a look at the damage.

If this is true, then the "mystery plane" is no longer a mystery. However, why did it take so long to get this nugget of info? Why not just announce it as part of the story of the plane going down?

Originally Posted by Marley23

This is naive and not really relevant, and while I'm not accusing you of anything, Conspiracy Theorists love to use these kinds of statements to disingenuous effect. You have no idea what their motivations were. They may have honestly believed they saw another plane, they may have been nuts or attention whores, hoped to sell a good story to gullible people, or any number of other things. That to the side, asserting the purity of their motives does not say anything about whether or not they are correct. Other people saw the plane crash and said nothing about seeing it shot down, and I don't think those people had an obvious reason to lie either.

You are correct, and I never thought about it this way. I did and still do not know what their motives might be. Just because I camt see a motive doesn't mean there isn't one.

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

Remember that another hallmark of many CT's is that they revolve around the action of Genius Fools. Here we've got a conspiracy that somehow managed to intercept Flight 93 and destroy it, but then they don't take credit for the competent and well trained US pilots who downed it in order to protect America, or claiming that they made brief (but unrecorded) radio contact during which the good, brave American men on the plane stated that the terrorists were fighting back and the might soon lose control of the cockpit so please, do what's right and down the plane. Instead, they create an elaborate conspiracy and have the pilot who flew the sortie sworn to secrecy, and all the base personnel who saw a fighter take off and return low on ammunition sworn to secrecy, and all their wives, girlfriends, drinking buddies and confidants. And all the experts who analyzed the wreckage were in on it, too. And there has been not one whistle blower after more than a decade.

All that, because on 9/11 of all fucking days, they couldn't have said "we were forced to destroy Flight 93 in order to save thousands more American lives, their sacrifice will always be remembered."

The reason (to me, at least) is very plausible. If the US govt. Could be dragged into court by the families of the passengers killed and be forced to pay millions in restitution. Besides, the hero story is a good one, and would make any attempt at hijacking in the future likely to be met with the same fate. Passengers would not stay seated like lambs going to the slaughter. They'd try to retake the plane. It's their only chance for survival.

[Musicat]

Originally Posted by Stink Fish Pot

My favorite quote from the "Mystery jet" section.

And you could put one on a bus, too, but what would that prove?

Let's suppose a sidewinder was installed on a small plane. Sounds simple. But consider what that would entail:

1. A small, trained crew who kept silent.
2. A location that was invisible to anyone else for preparation.
3. Foreknowledge of where a hijacked airliner would be on a certain day (a critical factor).
4. A pilot who keeps his mouth shut or is killed afterwards.
5. An airport record of takeoff and landing.
6. Evidence of a missile hitting the plane.
7. Reliable observers who saw the event (pix would be nice).

None of these, let alone all of them, have the slightest evidence to prove they happened. And #3 alone requires government knowledge of the entire attack plan, which requires evidence of thousands of others in on it, too. It never stops -- the more you investigate, the sillier the proposal becomes.

One of the hallmarks of pseudoscience is that evidence, over time, does not strengthen. This is in contrast to postulates that originally attracted ridicule, such as the idea of continental drift, but became accepted over time. The evidence piled up from multiple sources -- geology, paleontology, oceanography, climatology, etc. until the preponderance of evidence was overwhelmingly in favor. This does not happen with crackpot CTs, and that's one way you can tell the difference.

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by Stink Fish Pot

I don't see how this is possible based on how the plane went into the ground. There is no plane left.

Dude, even on the worst case of mass murder in California showed that no plane would be left and yet forensic science and technology allow us to find residue and bits of evidence that shows what was the most likely reason for the crash.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific...es_Flight_1771

Incidentally I saw the documentary on "Airplane Crash Investigations" in the Wikipedia cite they report that the gun was found in that case, but that is not quite accurate, the gun was found, but in bits and pieces, but there was a bit of the murderer's finger in the trigger mechanism so an id was possible with DNA.

In the case of the 9/11 plane one only needs to find trace evidence of rocket propellant or missile explosives, none were found and the remains left coincide with an intact plane crashing into the ground, if the plane was hit by a missile then plenty of bits of the plane would had fallen in different locations.

[Musicat]

Originally Posted by Stink Fish Pot

I don't see how this [detecting a missile hit] is possible based on how the plane went into the ground. There is no plane left.

A missile causes an explosion, which scatters debris. Debris scattered at high altitudes disburses even more before landing. Explosions leave traces of chemical residue.

A plane nose-diving into the ground scatters very little and buries itself in a small hole.

No residue, small hole, check. All of the evidence suggests the latter.

If this is true, then the "mystery plane" is no longer a mystery. However, why did it take so long to get this nugget of info? Why not just announce it as part of the story of the plane going down?

Ever hear of the Fog of War?

[Jackmannii]

As has been stated, actual conspiracies (i.e. criminal conspiracies, spy plots etc.) are not uncommon. Long-running conspiracies uncovered by Brave Private Citizens Doggedly Researching And Exposing Horrific Conspiracies While Overcoming Ridicule are vanishingly rare (the Dreyfus Affair is the only one I can point to).

I loathe Conspiracy Theories and their proponents for a few reasons. They are typically amazingly stupid and illogical, waste our time, promote suspicion and hatred of our leaders and valuable institutions and programs, and the motive force behind many of them is bigotry (often against Jews, but also commonly involving other religious and ethnic groups. The more conspiracy theories you believe, the more likely you are to be a flaming bigot).

Since this post would not be complete without the latest dingbat conspiracy theory, here it is - the face-eating episode in Miami is the forerunner of a Zombie Apocalypse brought on by such things as aspartame, fluoride and vaccines:

http://www.naturalnews.com/035990_zo...mi_police.html

By the way, the first poster who brings up the Tuskeegee Experiment as an example of a true conspiracy (which it most certainly was not - it was conducted openly) deserves a metaphorical whack on the butt.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Originally Posted by Stink Fish Pot

I don't see how this is possible based on how the plane went into the ground. There is no plane left.

A plane that is hit by a missile always, ALWAYS, sheds parts. Additionally, there is a notable explosion. No parts were ever found and no explosion was witnessed by anybody.

[Rick]

So wait, let me see if I have this right.
The passengers on the plane were on the phone to their loved ones, and they made the decision to rush the cockpit.
At exactly the same time a mysterious white airplane, a private plane that had been modified to carry a sidewinder missile shows up and shoots the plane down.
Riiiiiiiiiight.

The problems are:
How did they arrange the timing?
How did the modify the white plane, with no one noticing
How did the white plane take off with no one pointing and saying "Holy Shit! there is a missile on that white plane!" (think people hanging around the airport and tower people.
How did the white plane find flight 93? Its not like the hijackers had filed a flight plan.
How did the missile explode and NOT leave any residue
How is it possible that the missile explosion did not cause any parts to be shed from the aircraft.
I could go on, but answer these and we at least have a start.