Video explaining faulty arguments of conpiracy theorists?

Status
Not open for further replies.

SiriusB

SiriusB

SiriusB

Soldato
Joined
16 Dec 2005
Posts
14,443
Location
Manchester
A while ago someone posted a link to a very interesting video explaining the faulty arguments used by conspiracy nutjobs and the like.

I have tried searching the forums and Google, but my search-fu fails me. :(

Can anyone remember the title of the video or, indeed, have the link handy?

Ta! :)

This thread is not an invitation for any nutjobs to post, so please don't bother! :p
 
I don't mind conspiracy nutjobs or people who have come into it the first time but what I hate is people like Magick who is presented with evidence/fact contrary to some of his beliefs but totally dismisses them.
Just once I would like him to post 'Actually I see your point and it makes total sense'.
Some posters on here have done that including myself.
One example was a thread about explosive particles in the Twin Towers incident and somebody had put me right by the 5th post.
I like how they always come back and say 'I've researched this for years' well so have I and it's crap.
 
dmpoole said:
I don't mind conspiracy nutjobs or people who have come into it the first time but what I hate is people like Magick who is presented with evidence/fact contrary to some of his beliefs but totally dismisses them.
Click to expand...

Sorry dmpoole but when you show me evidence that 9/11 wasn't an inside job and I should believe what the government tells me then i'll say "hey you are right", until then though i'll stick with it being an inside job.

And btw i've listened to both sides of the argument regarding 9/11 and everytime without fail the 'conspiracy theorists' make a better case for what really happened. Also do you realise that governments version of events is just another 'conspiracy theory' just happens to be the state sponsered one?
 
magick said:
Sorry dmpoole but when you show me evidence that 9/11 wasn't an inside job and I should believe what the government tells me then i'll say "hey you are right", until then though i'll stick with it being an inside job.

And btw i've listened to both sides of the argument regarding 9/11 and everytime without fail the 'conspiracy theorists' make a better case for what really happened. Also do you realise that governments version of events is just another 'conspiracy theory' just happens to be the state sponsered one?
Click to expand...

Ultimately it just comes down to faith and trust. Most people will never have been involved in any evidence collecting process. In reality, all reports and documents could be entirely fictional. So the question actually is, do you trust that those in positions of power would be corrupt enough to lie about the truth behind a particular event?

In relation to 9/11, I feel satisfied that the official version of events is likely to be accurate. However, I remember reading something chilling in a journal on the decision to make corporate manslaughter a criminal offence in England and Wales.

The US car company Ford recognised a fault with one of their cars in the 1990s that meant it was prone to explode when hit viciously from the back. It was recorded in their meeting minutes that they decided that it was cheaper to pay out compensation from lost lives than to face the bad publicity from a public recall. Disturbing to say the least - it does make you wander...
 
magick said:
And btw i've listened to both sides of the argument regarding 9/11 and everytime without fail the 'conspiracy theorists' make a better case for what really happened. Also do you realise that governments version of events is just another 'conspiracy theory' just happens to be the state sponsered one?
Click to expand...

Thats because conspiracy theorists try a hell of a lot harder to get their silly views aired; nobody else cares. The only people who take any of your crap with even the mildest of interests and only warrant it enough time of day to poke a few holes are randoms on forums.
 
Nitefly said:
In relation to 9/11, I feel satisfied that the official version of events is likely to be accurate.
Click to expand...

Many of the people of the people who sat on the 9/11 commision don't share your optimism :-

Indeed, the co-chairs of the Commission now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political considerations.

9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says "I don't believe for a minute we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only "the first draft" of history.

9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn't have access . . . ."

9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said "We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting"
Click to expand...
 
A wesbite called '911proof' which claims to be presenting impartial, straightforward facts -- yet that the website exists at all, let alone it trying to self affirm what it's presenting by declaring it to be 'proof' in it's very title would suggest to me that they're definitely swaying to the conspiracy end of the spectrum.

Then that it's evidence is merely a bunch of quotes scrubbed of context allowing the people who would be on a site like that in the first place (certainly to already have ideas of conspiracy and skulduggery floating around in their heads) to read whatever they want to.

D- see me!!!
 
I got to say there are huge amounts of evidence to suggest 911 was an inside job designed as a reason to fabricate a war in the Middle East for largely unknown reasons, perhaps oil or control/power.

Any one saying conspiracies don’t happen and all the rest of it, just look at Wikileaks and all the documents they are releasing that show what the government and government departments REALLY have been up to, covering up attacks on civilians etc. The fact the Obama administration and US Army etc is putting huge pressure to shut down the organisation PROVE the documents are genuine.

Not forgetting Wikileaks founder, who was accused of multiple rapes shortly after he basically told USA to **** off, huge coincidence isn’t it. Like something out of 101 ways to discredit/damage your enemy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11047025
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11049316
 
Spektor said:
A wesbite called '911proof' which claims to be presenting impartial, straightforward facts -- yet that the website exists at all, let alone it trying to self affirm what it's presenting by declaring it to be 'proof' in it's very title would suggest to me that they're definitely swaying to the conspiracy end of the spectrum.

Then that it's evidence is merely a bunch of quotes scrubbed of context allowing the people who would be on a site like that in the first place (certainly to already have ideas of conspiracy and skulduggery floating around in their heads) to read whatever they want to.

D- see me!!!
Click to expand...

While i'm neutral on this. I do have to ask you , If you was to create a site which the sole purpose was to provide proof that something had happened what would you name said site?
 
Hatter The Mad said:
I'll take my chances.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI
Click to expand...

Thank you, Hatter. That's the one I was after :)

Dons, you may close this thread. Unfortunately it has turned into yet another pointless debate about 911. With Magik in here too, we are doomed to tread the same old rubbish he always spouts.

The Moon landings were faked so lizard men could build their missile to take out the WTC and Pentagon just before they phase shifted out of our 3D existence. :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom