Page 3 of 3
Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 5:38 pm
by wayfriend
Now, I don't believe in a conspircacy here, but let's not be downright gullible either.
Malik23 wrote:many dozens of people hallucinated a low flying jet head toward the Pentagon and hit the building
None of them talked to me. The govt told me about them. So all I need to do is disbelieve corrupt officials. No hallucination required.
the government quickly stashed airplane parts at the site (while cameras were rolling, and while hundreds of people watched on site)
I saw no footage of any camera rolling at this time. The govt told me there was, but said it could not be released for security reasons. Again, all I need to do is disbelieve corrupt officials.
Flight 77--and all it's passengers--disappeared without a trace at precisely the same time dozens of people hallucinated it hitting the building
I didn't get to the airport that day. Was there even a flight 77? I heard about one ...
a HUGE missile hit the Pentagon at exactly the same time that a low-flying Flight 77 was seen to be heading towards it by those pesky dozens of people watching and yet no one noticed the missile coming
... or if they did, they weren't allowed to talk about it. If there's missing people, maybe they are the witnesses ...
an exploding missile can make a generator (weighing several tons) to move toward the building
I saw no generator. This is the first I heard about it. Should I believe you? Who are you?
our government is evil enough to plan an attack on its own citizens in order to justify an attack on Afghanistan and Iraq (forgetting that we didn't need such justification for Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti, Grenada, Iraq bombing in 1998, etc.).
Considering all the documented historical evidence of doing exactly that kind of thing, many times, that's not hard to believe.
You should not believe that there is a conspiracy. But if you believe that there is not for these reasons, then you're darn gullible, and if there was a conspiracy, the conspirators could rest easy.
Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 3:45 am
by Zarathustra
There's nothing wrong with my reasons, you've just not seen the evidence I've seen which led me to come up with these reasons. These reasons, backed up by evidence (which I admittedly didn't supply) are good enough reasons to dismiss the idea that a plane did not hit the Pentagon.
Check out this site:
www.oilempire.us/pentagon-photos.html
This site is ran by someone who DOES believe that there was a conspiracy on 9/11, but thinks that the ridiculous, easily-disproven "theories" floating around the Net are disinformation released to make the 9/11 conspiracy seem ridiculous. (Clever!) So even "serious-minded" conspiracy believers think it's gullible to doubt a plane hit the Pentagon.
In my opinion, it does not make a conspiracy theory more believable to concede that its major points are bogus and then suggest that these were always red herrings put out by the FBI. If your theory can only survive rebuttals by going ever deeper into yet
more conspiracies, then you're clearly trying to prove something you
want to believe, predisposed to believe, need to believe. [I'm talking about the guy who runs the linked site, not anyone here.] [/i]
Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 3:55 am
by Loredoctor
Malik23 wrote:If your theory can only survive rebuttals by going ever deeper into yet more conspiracies, then you're clearly trying to prove something you want to believe, predisposed to believe, need to believe. [I'm talking about the guy who runs the linked site, not anyone here.] [/i]
That's what I have always said; to further create theories to support a theory is not proving anything - just that one is desperate enough to believe the original theory. Good point.
Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 11:09 am
by dlbpharmd
These reasons, backed up by evidence (which I admittedly didn't supply) are good enough reasons to dismiss the idea that a plane did not hit the Pentagon.
Confused - you're saying a plane didn't hit the Pentagon, but the link you supplied says that one did?
Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 11:11 am
by Loredoctor
He's using a double negative: dismissing the claim that a plane did not hit.
Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 2:49 pm
by wayfriend
My point is: if all you (anyone) knows is what you get in the news, see on the TV, and read in websites -- in other words, if all your information relies on what other people choose to give you -- then you can very easily be tricked. And all you're assertions of "it's been proven" are really just saying "I believe the guy who said it was proven".
I don't think anyone should be so complacent.
Everyone believed in WMDs in Iraq ... for a while ...
Everyone believed that Diego Garcia was uninhabited ... for a while.
Everyone believed that Vietnam sunk two US ships and that's why the US went to war with Vietnam ... for a while.
etc.
Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 1:37 am
by dlbpharmd
Ok, Wayfriend, I get your point - but since I can't objectively prove everything I see or read, where do I draw the line?
Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 2:39 am
by The Laughing Man
...suspend disbelief...
Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 4:56 am
by Loredoctor
Esmer wrote: ...suspend disbelief...
But where do you draw the line on which theory? You cannot just suspend disbelief on
every conspiracy theory?
Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 5:01 am
by Loredoctor
Wayfriend wrote: And all you're assertions of "it's been proven" are really just saying "I believe the guy who said it was proven".
But that should be applied even to every conspiracy theorist. We are now entering into territory where we live in a chaotic, shifting world where nothing can be believed. I mean, there was a siege in a city where I lived - I saw the smoke with my own eyes and watched the news on tv, but if someone comes along with a conspiracy theory that the news played the siege story for some shadowy reason what
exactly do I believe?
I think there should be a conspiracy test: any theory which requires further creation of theories should be kicked out of the door. That's the only logical thing to do.
Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 1:00 pm
by wayfriend
dlbpharmd wrote:since I can't objectively prove everything I see or read, where do I draw the line?
I have no clue. I really don't.
Personally, I don't consider much of what I read in the news 100% truth. Maybe not anything. There's a lot I consider probable, and a lot I consider improbable. And I stay open to other points of view.
Here's a case in point. First there was a news story about Fidelity having a laptop stolen filled with HP employees sensitive 401K/pension data - identity theft gold. (It caught my attention, since I am one of the employees.) A few months later, I hear about the Vet Admin has a laptop stolen, filled with veterans personal information. Then yesterday, I heard about a laptop stolen with all the personal information about anyone who used hotels.com.
If you go into google news, there's like 10 or 20 stories about laptops stolen that just
happen to have millions of customers personal data and social security numbers on them. I mean, how likely is it really that people walk around with a copy of a customer database on a laptop?
Me thinks that this is looking like a plausible deniability scam. Sell customers personal information, arrange for it to mysteriously 'stolen', then if someone traces information back to you, you can claim it was stolen.
I'm giving this consipiracy theory more than 10% credibility.
Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 6:37 pm
by Zarathustra
But where do you draw the line on which theory? You cannot just suspend disbelief on every conspiracy theory?
I think occam's razor is useful. Most conspiracy theories can be collapsed by the sheer weight of implausible things which must be believed in order for them to be true.
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 8:47 am
by finn
Wayfriend wrote:dlbpharmd wrote:since I can't objectively prove everything I see or read, where do I draw the line?
Personally, I don't consider much of what I read in the news 100% truth. Maybe not anything. There's a lot I consider probable, and a lot I consider improbable. And I stay open to other points of view.
Well put Wayfriend, I think it's important not to draw a line, a line is a fixed point, a position to defend and a place to hide behind...I really think that there is a good case to assume that nearly everything you are told is serving someone's agenda and that to decide what to believe is about weighing each thing in the balance, that way if additional information comes along you can add that to the balance and see how it may re-inforce or deny the likelyhood.
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 9:29 am
by Avatar
Well said Finn. And WayFriend too. Everything on its own merits.
--A