Conspirary Theories

[maplesyrup]

Just conjuring up the word conspiracy brings thoughts of ridicule and disbelief to a lot of people.

Sometimes I read about conspiracy theories, like those surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy, and quite frankly end up more confused than ever. Perhaps that is part of the scheme. Although I am not sure who killed the US president, for some reason I do not believe the Warren Commission, it is just too far fetched a story for me.

I am curious what the other posters here think about conspiracy theories, whether they give them any credence, or whether you all believe everything you are told by your governments, and/or major corporations, which in a lot of ways, are supplanting our governments these days.

[maplesyrup]

My initial reaction to this was nonsense, but then I realized how programmed I was having grown up on spoon-fed news. Anyway check it out for yourselves:

Flash Movie

I hope you can open it.

[August1991]

My initial reaction to this was nonsense...

Your initial reaction was probably right.

Think. Galileo, Newton, Copernicus. Think, what is the scientific method?

Be an intelligent sceptic.

[Slavik44]

interesting little piece who knows how credible it is, no one here really has the ability to check the information given. The one thing I remember that correlates with some of the quotes they gave was that in the morning of september the 11th, CKNW 980 AM, was not reporting a boeing had flown into the pentagon. The stories they were giving were, a bomb, a fire, a remote controlled plane , and a small passenger plan. But who knows how credible that is, people may have just been looking to say something. However I am inclined to belive this is a load of crap, but someone shoudl forward this to Michael moore, he may need it for his planned farinhiet 9/11 and a half.

[kimmy]

For a critical assessment of the claims made in the video, check out...

http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

Unfortunately, the appeal of conspiracy theories has resulted in widespread dissemination of Meyssan's "theory" in France and the USA, particularly in web sites that mirror his work. As Le Nouvel Observateur noted: "This theory suits everyone - there are no Islamic extremists and everyone is happy. It eliminates reality."

Even the most wild-eyed fruitcakes will have to concede that the Twin Towers are, in fact, gone, yes? The numerous independant videos of airliners striking them would have been rather difficult to fake, yes?

On a morning when 3 other airplanes were hijacked and crashed within a short time of each other, 2 of them being flown with precision into buildings, is it really that hard to believe that a 4th plane was crashed by hijackers?

Or are we to believe that the incident at the Pentagon was completely unrelated to the other events which happened at exactly the same time?

How does Occam's Razor go, again?

-kimmy

[maplesyrup]

My initial reaction to this was nonsense...

Your initial reaction was probably right.

Think. Galileo, Newton, Copernicus. Think, what is the scientific method?

Be an intelligent sceptic.

Why would I believe anything coming out of the White House any more than anything coming from a conspiracy theorist?

My preference would be for people to refute these theories if they can, rather than holding them up to ridicule, which then makes me concerned they have some credibility.

Of Big Oil, By Big Oil, For Big Oil

[maplesyrup]

Top Ten Conspiracy Theories of 2002

These certainly make you sit up and take notice.

[Guest eureka]

What an interesting page, Kimmy. Some of it may be far-fetched but some is already proved.

[kimmy]

Why would I believe anything coming out of the White House  any more than anything coming from a conspiracy theorist?

My preference would be for people to refute these theories if they can, rather than holding them up to ridicule, which then makes me concerned they have some credibility.

I think that the page I linked to did a thorough and logical job debunking the video you posted, Syrup. Did you actually read it?

Specifically, the March 2002 photograph of repair efforts underway at the Pentagon reveals the full extent of the damage to the Pentagon and the amount of penetration the airliner achieved, which in itself counters most of the claims made in the video.

Go back and read the page I linked to, Syrup.

What an interesting page, Kimmy. Some of it may be far-fetched but some is already proved.

Did you mean the debunking page I posted, or Syrup's top 10 conspiracy theories page? (this one: Of Big Oil, By Big Oil, For Big Oil )

I did find this page very interesting, because much of what it says is very logical.

However, most of the arguments he presents fall into 2 categories:

* Why the US government would be motivated to participate in such a massive deceit. (#1, #2, #10)

* The that it is possible. (#7, #8, #9)

Yes, there are certainly reasons why having an excuse to invade Afghanistan worked out pretty well for certain people. But he seems to be trying to lead us to the conclusion that Bin Laden was framed... which falls somewhat flat, when Bin Laden himself was on our TVs just a few weeks ago explaining how he conceived of the attacks.

To me, it would seem the only way conspiracy theorists could work around that is to conclude that Osama is acting on behalf of the US government.

-kimmy

[maplesyrup]

Do we even know if he is really alive?

You have seen the artwork about the plane or whatever going into the pentagon, so who's to say that video with bin Laden just before the election wasn't fabrication.

Walter Cronkite said it was.

It is fact that they had prepared a backup plan to bamboozle if they hadn't landed on the moon. They landed so they never had to use it.

[Guest eureka]

Sorry, Kimmy, I meant MS's link, I did not pay much attention to the Pentagon "theory." It is absurd.

As a matter of interest, I have a very distant relative who was working in the Pentagon at the time. I know nothing about him or what he said of the attack, but my brother who is a genealogical expert, is in occasional contact and mentioned that he had spoken of the planes. My brother is in Britain and and researches roots for Americans from a specific area of Britain.

[kimmy]

Do we even know if he is really alive?

He looked pretty alive on the video...

You have seen the artwork about the plane or whatever going into the pentagon,

Huh? What artwork are you referring to?

so who's to say that video with bin Laden just before the election wasn't fabrication.

Walter Cronkite said it was.

The exact quote you're referring to, on the Larry King show, is:

"And I have a feeling that it could tilt the election a bit. In fact, I'm a little inclined to think that Karl Rove, the political manager at the White House, who is a very clever man, he probably set up bin Laden to this thing."

He doesn't claim it's a fabrication. He says he thinks Karl Rove put Bin Laden up to it. I'd have been very interested to hear how Walter Cronkite thinks that might have been done, but unfortunately he never gets around to explaining.

If an expert on video authentication or voice pattern matching were to say they believed it's fake, or former acquaintances of OBL were to come out and claim they don't believe that's him on the video, I would give it some consideration.

If a retired news anchorman comes out and says Karl Rove might have put OBL up to it, well, I'm left wanting more information.

It is fact that they had prepared a backup plan to bamboozle if they hadn't landed on the moon. They landed so they never had to use it.

So, you're claiming that, what... the current Bin Laden we've seen on the last couple of messages, is an actor? An animatronic puppet or something?

-kimmy

[Cartman]

You know MS, I believe in conspiracy theories. For example, this whole Parrish thing? Total bunk. After she received coverage for accidentally calling Bush a war monger etc. before the election, she and Martin hatched a plan to use this media coverage to their advantage in order to re-establish a Liberal majority government.

By booting out Parrish for staged anti-Bush comments, the opposition is encouraged to call for a vote of non-confidence because the Libs look so weak. But in reality, Martin will actually be better off becasue he will look really cozy when Bush comes here at the end of the month. It totally nullifies Harpers' whining that Martin tolerates US bashing.

Why else would a confirmed Martin supporter bash her own campaign and endlessly criticize the leader she publicly supported? Renegade? No way. Strategic planner? Absolutely!

She was after all, a very strong Martin supporter not so long ago.

Martin supporter trashes Liberal campaign

Parrish was a vocal supporter of Martin's bid to become her party's leader, but also has a reputation as an outspoken member of the Liberal caucus.

http://toronto.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/Vie...parrish20040609

Thought you would like that. Layton is in this too.

[maplesyrup]

What will be the telltale sign?

When Martin gives her a Senate seat!

[Cartman]

No! If the opposition does not call for a non-confidence vote, my theory will be proven when she does not go to the NDP, but sits as an independent and yet continues to vote in favour of government legislation.

[Guest eureka]

I like it, Cartman. For the first time in years, the Liberals have a strategy.