Jump to content

The Fortean/paranormal/conspiracy thread


Astro Hollywood

Recommended Posts

  • Moderators

The photo shown by conspiracy theorists on WTC 7 is very misleading. They show it from the side that has no damage and then go "why did an undamaged building collapse?" which is very handy until you view it from the other side and you can easily see the damage which would've made it come down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

debunking911 Article on WTC 7

 

Pretty much covers most of it.

 

"Pull it" used by the fire department is used to say "lets pull our people out of the building" rather than "lets pull it down with lots of explosives"

 

Bit mad to think otherwise.

 

Aynway that article covers quite a few things and references most of the conspiracy theorists so it's worth reading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really for me, the great mystery of 9/11 is how people can watch, live on tv, 2 huge planes full of fuel thump into the heart of New York city and go "I wonder if that did enough damage?" I swear someone could Senate Building in Washington and there'd be someone on the internet who'd complain that the Washington monument falling over is suspicious.A friend of mine got really into the whole 9/11 conspiracy stuff, even going so far as to organise an event about it where people discussed it, showed films etc. I sat through a 2 hour film about the whole thing, and then fell out spectacularly with him after I remained unpersuaded.2 months later he had a severe mental breakdown and spent 3 months in a mental institution, and has never fully recovered since. In retrospect, the compulsive fascination with conspiracy theories was a warning sign of his mental deterioration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the end of the day many conspiracy the 9/11 ones are actually encouraged and aided by the people that they are supposed to be attacking. Much better than peope concern themselves with fantastical stories of how the govt. blew up the twin towers than pause for thought and address the real issues and assign blamce for this apparently 'shocking' attack - e.g. the fact that Bush knew the identities of some of the 9/11 attackers, knew they were in the US, knew they were taking flying lessons (flying only, no landing for these guy's), knew that using commercial airlines as weapons was a longterm plan, knew that the twin towers were a primary target, etc, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Critic Mike Berger from the group '9/11 Truth' rejected the findings. He said: "Their explanation simply isn't sufficient. We're being lied to."

Says it all.
Getting into conspiracy theories is a strictly one way street, never back down. If you ever had to admit that you were wrong about firmly believing this stuff, you'd basically be saying "yes, I was an insane idiot who wasted years of my life," so none of the wackos will ever admit defeat. It's pretty easy for them to do too because whatever proof comes along, they can just claim it's part of the cover-up. If whoever the leading conspiracy gurus are right now out and out said they'd been wrong all along and they felt embarassed about their stupid beliefs, the story would be that they'd been gotten to by the man and pressured into a false confession or brainwashed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Exactly. If you ever try to argue with them then you are quickly accused of being a friend of the enemy. Any agency that argues with them is government funded or has connections to some *powerful* people. Anytime they are backed into a corner with overwhelming proof that their theory is rubbish (like the classic "look at the missile pods on these so-called aircraft" which were fuel tanks present on 100% of that aircraft model) they scream one of their other theories at you.For them they can form an inductive proof by merely suggesting one thing and then tying them together with crazed logic and leaps of faith. However, as soon as you rubbish one part they refuse to accept that their whole proof is falsified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last month, Charlie Brooker wrote a thing about conspiracy theorists and here it is.

I've got a theory - an untested, unprovable theory - that the more interesting your life is at any given point, the less lurid and spectacular your dreams will be. Think of it as a balancing procedure carried out by the brain to stop you getting bored to death.If your waking life is mundane, it'll inject some thrills into your night-time imaginings to maintain a healthy overall fun quotient. So if you work in a cardboard box factory, and your job is to stare at the side of each box as it passes along a conveyor belt, to ensure they're all uniform and boxy enough - and you do this all day, every day, until your mind grows so dissociated and numb you can scarcely tell where the cardboard ends and your body begins - when your daily routine is THAT dull, chances are you'll spend each night dreaming you're the Emperor of Pluto, wrestling a 6ft green jaguar during a meteor storm in the desert just outside Vegas. All well and good in the world of dreams. But if you continue to believe you're the Emperor of Pluto after you've woken up, and you go into work and start knocking the boxes around with a homemade sceptre while screaming about your birthright, you're in trouble.I mention this because recently I've found myself bumping into people - intelligent, level-headed people - who are sincerely prepared to entertain the notion that there might be something in some of the less lurid 9/11 conspiracy theories doing the rounds. They mumble about the "controlled demolition" of WTC 7 (oft referred to as "the third tower"), or posit the notion that the Bush administration knew 9/11 was coming and let it happen anyway. I mean, you never know, right? Right? And did I tell you I'm the Emperor of Pluto?The glaring problem - and it's glaring in 6,000 watt neon, so vivid and intense you can see it from space with your eyes glued shut - is that with any 9/11 conspiracy theory you care to babble can be summed up in one word: paperwork.Imagine the paperwork. Imagine the level of planning, recruitment, coordination, control, and unbelievable nerve required to pull off a conspiracy of that magnitude. Really picture it in detail. At the very least you're talking about hiring hundreds of civil servants cold-hearted enough to turn a blind eye to the murder of thousands of their fellow countrymen. If you were dealing with faultless, emotionless robots - maybe. But this almighty conspiracy was presumably hatched and executed by fallible humans. And if there's one thing we know about humans, it's that our inherent unreliability will always derail the simplest of schemes. It's hard enough to successfully operate a video shop with a staff of three, for Christ's sake, let alone slaughter thousands and convince the world someone else was to blame.That's just one broad objection to all the bullshit theories. But try suggesting it to someone in the midst of a 9/11 fairytale reverie, and they'll pull a face and say, "Yeah, but ... " and start banging on about some easily misinterpreted detail that "makes you think" (when it doesn't) or "contradicts the official story" (when you misinterpret it). Like nutbag creationists, they fixate on thinly spread, cherry-picked nuggets of "evidence" and ignore the thundering mass of data pointing the other way.And when repeatedly pressed on that one, basic, overall point - that a conspiracy this huge would be impossible to pull off - they huff and whine and claim that unless you've sat through every nanosecond of Loose Change (the conspiracy flick du jour) and personally refuted every one of its carefully spun "findings" before their very eyes, using a spirit level and calculator, you have no right to an opinion on the subject.Oh yeah? So if my four-year-old nephew tells me there's a magic leprechaun in the garden I have to spend a week meticulously peering underneath each individual blade of grass before I can tell him he's wrong, do I?Look hard enough, and dementedly enough, and you can find "proof" that Kevin Bacon was responsible for 9/11 - or the 1987 Zeebrugge ferry disaster, come to that. It'd certainly make for a more interesting story, which is precisely why several thousand well-meaning people would go out of their way to believe it. Throughout my twenties I earnestly believed Oliver Stone's account of the JFK assassination. Partly because of the compelling (albeit wildly selective) way the "evidence" was blended with fiction in his 1991 movie - but mainly because I WANTED to believe it. Believing it made me feel important.Embrace a conspiracy theory and suddenly you're part of a gang sharing privileged information; your sense of power and dignity rises a smidgen and this troublesome world makes more sense, for a time. You've seen through the matrix! At last you're alive! You ARE the Emperor of Pluto after all!Except - ahem - you're only deluding yourself, your majesty. Because to believe the "system" is trying to control you is to believe it considers you worth controlling in the first place. The reality - that "the man" is scarcely competent enough to control his own bowels, and doesn't give a toss about you anyway - is depressing and emasculating; just another day in the cardboard box factory. And that's no place for an imaginary emperor, now, is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...