 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I found this article at cracked.com a good read. It's a bit long and uses
a bit vulgar style in some parts, but I warmly recommend you to read it.
http://www.cracked.com/article_15740_was-911-inside-job.html
It's not a debunking article per se, but more of an opinion of why the
conspiracy theorists are nuts. Especially the second page makes good points
about why keeping a huge conspiracy like that is basically impossible: There
simply are way too many people involved and too many witnesses who could
blow up the whole thing with simple evidence (eg. by showing a paycheck by
the government to keep them quiet).
The conspiracy theorists claim that all the people involved, who would
could blow up the whole conspiracy, were paid by the government to keep
quiet. As the article aptly puts it, how much money would *you* take in
order to keep quiet about the murder of your family, friends or co-workers?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> It's not a debunking article per se, but more of an opinion of why the
> conspiracy theorists are nuts. Especially the second page makes good points
> about why keeping a huge conspiracy like that is basically impossible: There
> simply are way too many people involved and too many witnesses who could
> blow up the whole thing with simple evidence (eg. by showing a paycheck by
> the government to keep them quiet).
>
> The conspiracy theorists claim that all the people involved, who would
> could blow up the whole conspiracy, were paid by the government to keep
> quiet. As the article aptly puts it, how much money would *you* take in
> order to keep quiet about the murder of your family, friends or co-workers?
More interestingly, it explains *why* people want to believe such
ludicrous claims: for the personal glory.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> More interestingly, it explains *why* people want to believe such
> ludicrous claims: for the personal glory.
Yeah. If what that article claims is true, the author of the Loose Change
"documentary" originally didn't even believe in the conspiracy, but simply
did the first version of the film just for fun and experiment, by deliberately
picking up certain material and ignoring the rest, just to see how it would
turn out. Only after he was offered glory and cash was it that he started
making it a serious attempt at a convincing (and outright deceiving) movie.
I suppose he succeeded big time. He got his fame, followers, TV time and
money.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> More interestingly, it explains *why* people want to believe such
>> ludicrous claims: for the personal glory.
>
> Yeah. If what that article claims is true, the author of the Loose Change
> "documentary" originally didn't even believe in the conspiracy, but simply
> did the first version of the film just for fun and experiment, by deliberately
> picking up certain material and ignoring the rest, just to see how it would
> turn out. Only after he was offered glory and cash was it that he started
> making it a serious attempt at a convincing (and outright deceiving) movie.
>
> I suppose he succeeded big time. He got his fame, followers, TV time and
> money.
I wasn't there, I didn't see what happened, but it seems like a
plausible story to me.
Of course, making up nonesense to get attention isn't new. (How many
forgers and con artists have claimed to have telekenesis?) The
interesting question is why the followers want to believe this stuff.
And again, it comes down to glory: Of all the sheeple here, only *I* and
my elite friends know The Truth. We are the modern Illunimati.
http://www.xkcd.com/610/
I wonder if that's why all the Editor Wars happened?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>
>> It's not a debunking article per se, but more of an opinion of why the
>> conspiracy theorists are nuts. Especially the second page makes good
>> points
>> about why keeping a huge conspiracy like that is basically impossible:
>> There
>> simply are way too many people involved and too many witnesses who could
>> blow up the whole thing with simple evidence (eg. by showing a
>> paycheck by
>> the government to keep them quiet).
>>
>> The conspiracy theorists claim that all the people involved, who would
>> could blow up the whole conspiracy, were paid by the government to keep
>> quiet. As the article aptly puts it, how much money would *you* take in
>> order to keep quiet about the murder of your family, friends or
>> co-workers?
>
> More interestingly, it explains *why* people want to believe such
> ludicrous claims: for the personal glory.
Well, its not just that. I don't have a link, but someone pointed out
that "most" conspiracy theories all have a common thread of ideas. In
essence, if you fall for one, you are more open to falling for the next,
and since that has thread into others, you can fall for it easier, and
so on. Once you start accepting certain patterns as feasible, you start
finding that all conspiracies have similar patterns. For believers, this
reinforces the patterns, for skeptics, it just makes them wonder who the
frak people can believe the BS, including, in some cases, 3-4 different
conspiracies that can't logically be happening at the same time, run by
the same people, without undermining all of them in the process.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> More interestingly, it explains *why* people want to believe such
>> ludicrous claims: for the personal glory.
>
> Yeah. If what that article claims is true, the author of the Loose Change
> "documentary" originally didn't even believe in the conspiracy, but simply
> did the first version of the film just for fun and experiment, by deliberately
> picking up certain material and ignoring the rest, just to see how it would
> turn out. Only after he was offered glory and cash was it that he started
> making it a serious attempt at a convincing (and outright deceiving) movie.
>
> I suppose he succeeded big time. He got his fame, followers, TV time and
> money.
>
Example of the "professionals" that do this:
http://swallowingthecamel.blogspot.com/2009/05/ghostbusters-ed-and-lorraine-warren.html
http://swallowingthecamel.blogspot.com/2009/05/ghostbusters-ed-and-lorraine-warren_29.html
http://swallowingthecamel.blogspot.com/2009/06/ghostbusters-part-iii-bs-in-connecticut.html
http://swallowingthecamel.blogspot.com/2009/07/ghostbusters-part-iv-ed-and-lorraine.html
Guys site is dedicated to digging these wackos up, and, when possible,
dissecting the facts. Got to love this one too, from there (The must be
putting something in the water, I am sure, but its not the rainbows I am
worried about. lol):
http://swallowingthecamel.blogspot.com/2009/07/conspiracy-monday-beware-sprinkler.html
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> Well, its not just that. I don't have a link, but someone pointed out
> that "most" conspiracy theories all have a common thread of ideas. In
> essence, if you fall for one, you are more open to falling for the next,
> and since that has thread into others, you can fall for it easier, and
> so on.
That seems to be true. I have yet to meet the person who is, for example,
a strong believer in the Moon landing hoax theories, but does not believe
for a second that there was a conspiracy in the 9/11 attacks, or the other
way around. For some reason these two conspiracy theories seem to go hand
in hand: If someone believes in one, there's an almost 100% probability that
he believes in the other too.
And this is not just the nutjobs in their basements who believe in black
helicopters, Roswell UFOs and the Kennedy assasination conspiracies. These
are just regular, normal people.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Guys site is dedicated to digging these wackos up, and, when possible,
> dissecting the facts. Got to love this one too, from there (The must be
> putting something in the water, I am sure, but its not the rainbows I am
> worried about. lol):
It's the fluoride.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>> Well, its not just that. I don't have a link, but someone pointed out
>> that "most" conspiracy theories all have a common thread of ideas. In
>> essence, if you fall for one, you are more open to falling for the next,
>> and since that has thread into others, you can fall for it easier, and
>> so on.
>
> That seems to be true. I have yet to meet the person who is, for example,
> a strong believer in the Moon landing hoax theories, but does not believe
> for a second that there was a conspiracy in the 9/11 attacks, or the other
> way around. For some reason these two conspiracy theories seem to go hand
> in hand: If someone believes in one, there's an almost 100% probability that
> he believes in the other too.
>
> And this is not just the nutjobs in their basements who believe in black
> helicopters, Roswell UFOs and the Kennedy assasination conspiracies. These
> are just regular, normal people.
>
Yeah. The regular "normal" people like the nut that wrote how he hated
what the left did to Palin, who was a nice wack.. uh, normal person like
him, but he doesn't trust the right either, so he feels he has been left
out in the middle. Well.. the regular "normal" people like this are
precisely what scared the hell out of me that she *might* actually end
up as VP. lol Like living in a world where everyone is Forest Gump, only
none of them sound like it, until they start talking about some aspect
of politics, education, etc., at which point you can see their brains
dribbling out their ears.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I found this article at cracked.com a good read. It's a bit long and uses
> a bit vulgar style in some parts, but I warmly recommend you to read it.
>
> http://www.cracked.com/article_15740_was-911-inside-job.html
>
> It's not a debunking article per se, but more of an opinion of why the
> conspiracy theorists are nuts. Especially the second page makes good points
> about why keeping a huge conspiracy like that is basically impossible: There
> simply are way too many people involved and too many witnesses who could
> blow up the whole thing with simple evidence (eg. by showing a paycheck by
> the government to keep them quiet).
>
> The conspiracy theorists claim that all the people involved, who would
> could blow up the whole conspiracy, were paid by the government to keep
> quiet. As the article aptly puts it, how much money would *you* take in
> order to keep quiet about the murder of your family, friends or co-workers?
Aside from a handful of people who think that our federal government is
always up to something evil, no matter who is in office, a small number
of people were afflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome to such a degree
that they believe him capable of anything evil. In all fairness,
conspiracy theories about Clinton abounded during his time in office as
well.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
