Top Ten Conspiracy Theories

[Red Phoenix]

Not at all. I've been called much worse than a fraud. I'd just do what I've always done; I'd ask for proof of claims. I'd ask for proof, just like I did when you made ridiculous claims earlier. I even offered the incentive of a year of financial backing for your book if you backed those claims up. You see, claims are fuck all. They're worthless without evidence. Credible, irrefutable evidence. In this case, it'd have been easy. In some cases, logic is all that's required.

 

 

Let's get something straight, MIT didn't post anything. Anyway, I'm tired and going to bed.

Fair enough, so we shouldn't be arguing then if we both value truth so much. As for MIT not posting anything, thanks if that's the case, will check that now. I saw that the .pdf had MIT on the top of it, so thought they had done. If I'm wrong, I'm completely fine with that.

[VERBAL DIARRHEA]

Mulder and Scully disagreed but at least one had great tits.

[Alan Sex]

Warning! The following content is NOT WORK SAFE. Click the Show button to reveal.

[Red Phoenix]

No, RP, it isn't hard. It isn't hard at all. It'd be a bit time consuming but hard to argue again, is ain't.

Just going back to this one more time.

 

As far as I know, and as far as I'd guess most of the people on the planet know, US security completely failed on 9/11. So yeah, you might find that it's very hard. You might even find that it's completely impossible.

 

It might be good "logic" not to lecture me on truth while you're doing shit like this.

[Alan Sex]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXKCDYumDMM

[Anubis]

Mulder and Scully disagreed but at least one had great tits.

 

Well RP is definitely Mulder, so NV must be Scully.

 

Pics, NV, or GTFO.

[Cardie]

An actual book.......With pages and shit?

 

[Rico1304]

March 2001

Golfer Payne Stewart. http://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/oct/26/julianborger

The F-16 was already in the air on a test flight, they lost radio contact with Stewarts plane so air traffic control sent the test pilot to have a look. When they got there they saw the misted windows. If it was a test flight it's unlikely that it was even armed (although the next 2 that went up might have been). On 9/11 the plane sent to intercept weren't armed as they weren't routinely armed as they were conditioned to having a bit of notice that the Russians were coming.

[Rico1304]

Here -

 

There was some speculation in the media that military jets were prepared to shoot down the Lear if it threatened to crash in a heavily populated area.[citation needed] Officials at the Pentagon strongly denied that possibility. Shooting down the plane "was never an option," Air Force spokesman Captain Joe Della Vedova said. "I don't know where that came from."[3]

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Just going back to this one more time.

 

As far as I know, and as far as I'd guess most of the people on the planet know, US security completely failed on 9/11. So yeah, you might find that it's very hard. You might even find that it's completely impossible.

 

It might be good "logic" not to lecture me on truth while you're doing shit like this.

Firstly, I didn't lecture you on truth. Secondly, doing what shit? You made a statement that had nothing to do with anything I commented on. If you can look at that quote and think the only issue i could possibly have is somebody claiming a security failure, you're quite a bizarre chap. Still, I've got to pop out for an hour this morning, after that I'll do as I promised and spend my time on something I really shouldn't; arguing against totally illogical, naive, ignorant statements. Why? You goaded my just the right amount. I won't be backing up anything I haven't claimed, though. Things like there wasn't a security failure.

[setreal]

Why? You goaded my just the right amount.

 

Apple are a bunch of cunts.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Apple are a bunch of cunts.

Quite right. As an owner of 0 Apple products (other than free software), I think RP has a few lessons to teach you in the dark art of goading!

[setreal]

Quite right. As an owner of 0 Apple products (other than free software), I think RP has a few lessons to teach you in the dark art of goading!

 

Hmm, must have confused you for somebody else then. Oh well. Carry on.

[Spy Bee]

46% of Americans think that Tower 7 was a controlled explosion (after being shown video footage).

46% of Americans didn't know that a third tower had collapsed.

 

I totally believe that there was a conspiracy, or at least that the American special forces/intelligence were complicit, but you'll never proove it on the internet. 

 

I get frustrated when people dismiss any theory out of hand. People do like to believe the world is flat and they don't want anthing to alter their world view, so they just blindly follow what they hear. But fuck it, it's sunny, I'm off work and I'm near a beach. Have a good day all y'all!

[Rico1304]

46% of Americans think that Tower 7 was a controlled explosion (after being shown video footage).

46% of Americans didn't know that a third tower had collapsed.

 

I totally believe that there was a conspiracy, or at least that the American special forces/intelligence were complicit, but you'll never proove it on the internet. 

 

I get frustrated when people dismiss any theory out of hand. People do like to believe the world is flat and they don't want anthing to alter their world view, so they just blindly follow what they hear. But fuck it, it's sunny, I'm off work and I'm near a beach. Have a good day all y'all!

60% of Americans either don't believe or are unsure about evolution.

[Red Phoenix]

Firstly, I didn't lecture you on truth.

Yes Numero, it might not have been a lecture. You still said I had no idea what truth is, (as well as calling me a fraud, fruitcake, and crank, of course.) on the last page.

 

 

I don't have a serious anything with you, I just think you're a fraud and you've no idea what truth - a complex and debated notion - actually is.

I'd be shocked if you knew what 'truth' actually means.

I don't think you're really so up on truth in this case yourself actually. If you were, you'd have probably just answered the question from the off.

 

Further back I said :

 

If you're beyond spending your time on it, why bring up the quote from 5 days ago?

And you said :

 

1) Because it was brought to my attention.

And yet you're calling me a "bizarre chap".

 

Looking forward to seeing your take on it anyway. Same with the apparently "already rebuffed junk" from Hersh, Lloyd and Postol in the chemical weapons thread.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Yes Numero, it might not have been a lecture.

There's no 'might' about it. You made it up. Again. Just like you did with the stuff I offered you money - thousands - to find.

 

I don't think you're really so up on truth in this case yourself actually. If you were, you'd have probably just answered the question from the off.

Can't you see this is a total non sequitur? being 'up on truth' has no relationship with being bothered to reply to a set of demands. Your critical thinking abilities are in the gutter.

 

And yet you're calling me a "bizarre chap".

What's bizarre about what I said? Somebody PM'd me, laughing at you, and we got in a discussion and he linked me to it because it stuck in his mind how ridiculous it was.

[Red Phoenix]

Somebody PM'd me, laughing at you, and we got in a discussion and he linked me to it because it stuck in his mind how ridiculous it was.

Thanks for that.

 

Your critical thinking abilities are in the gutter.

Oh look, another insult. That's nice. Along with your other stuff, like crank, fruitcake, fraud, brainwashed, etc.

 

Still not got around to why the quote you were linked to is wrong then? Or the chemical weapons thread posts either? After all of these posts and all of the namecalling, insults, etc. That's surprising. It's almost like you're more into focusing on me instead of debating anything else.

 

I've got other stuff to do, will check back later on to see if you've finally decided to actually debate anything other than what you think of me. Later.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Finally? Strange. Anyway, I'll be replying when I'm ready. It'll take more than copying and pasting a YouTube comment or an article from somebody else.

[Dr Nowt]

This thread would take a seriously excellent Twin Peaks turn now if the person who PM'd Numero was RP.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Go back to the quote and refute what needs refuting.

Despite my best efforts to avoid wasting time actually debating the senseless, logic-devoid quote from an unnamed source I can't even find at the bottom of a YouTube video, I find myself doing it anyway. TLW, what are you doing to me? Just when I thought I was out, you pull me back in. Right, what was the question again? *looks back* Oh yes, why I think that first paragraph is illogical nonsense.

 

It’s his implications and the conclusion he seems to come to. That's what irks me and why I derided it. The thing I have most issue with is the ‘handful of Arabs’ statement. Oy vey iz mir, what’s the implication here? That they couldn’t do the crimes by themselves, that it had to be an inside job because they weren’t numerous enough or because they were Arabs, they couldn’t possibly come up with a plot as damaging as this?

 

If it’s the former - that there were too few of them - as it seems to be, then which President is responsible for Timothy McVeigh? Who’s responsible for Ted Kaczynski’s transgressions? Was it an inside job when Tamerlan Tsarnaev attacked a place I’ve been to many times? If lack of numbers is enough evidence of an inside job, I’d like to know who’s responsible for those above. Logic fail.

 

I mean, will you just stop and fucking think? How could 'a few Arabs' do it!, he cries. Do you think it would have been any less conspicuous if Bush, Cheney, and Intelligence Agencies had organised it? The very reason they had a chance of actually pulling something like this off is because it was an attack that required just four novice pilots, alongside some muscle, and a crude plot to get on a domestic flight and slam it into buildings with them on board. McVeigh said of his domestic terrorism – the largest in scale in US history - that ‘the truth is, I blew up the Murrah building and isn’t it kind of scary that one man could wreak this kind of hell?’

 

Well, yes, it is. It is scary, Timbo. It’s precisely because of the relevance of obscurity and small scale that I find the comment was so fucking harebrained. There’s a quote from Margret Mead that states you should ‘never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has’. The other side of that coin is that not only could it have been done just by a handful of people, it might well have been the only way of actually carrying out such an attack without being stopped. Fire a nuke at America; they’d stop that. Plan an invasion and they’ll spot it a mile off. Sneak up in their blind spot and you can fuck them in the arse without taking off their trousers and be home by dinner. It doesn't need to be elaborate. It doesn't need to be complicated. It didn't required any brilliance. Just a willingness to die and the ability to take the controls of a plane. Far from being evidence of an ‘inside job’, it was their obscurity, their planning in an Arabic speaking country, and their relative tiny size that were vital factors in the ‘success’ of their mission.

 

My argument isn’t that security didn’t fail, my argument is that security failing isn’t proof or evidence of any of the things this guy is clearly implying. The rest of the first paragraph is a long-winded way of saying that security failed, so I'm not going to go through one by one even if I have some issues with them; they're not really important in the wider context of his idiocy. Security didn’t so much just simply fail, it was totally inadequate to deal with the type of threat they faced. That’s how a small group of people managed surprise buttocks. Super-power size doesn't matter at all, it's totally irrelevant to either their ability to carry it out or as proof it was an inside job. America was unprepared for an event like that, carried out by just a few people. That’s why it worked. Just as it was inadequate to deal with other threats in the past and will be in the future. That’s no indicator of an ‘inside job’, where government officials, including the very highest office, were all working together for the worlds largest every conspiracy. If you think it is proof of that, your standards for evidence are shockingly low.

 

Now, I’ve got absolutely no objection to a thread like this (not that it would matter if I did), because it gives people with – and I’m being as polite as I can here – let’s say, an alternative world view, a place to share their views without it littering up the forum. For the most part, I steer well clear of it. In that way, I quite like this thread. I was linked to a post I would never have seen and one comment – that you don’t half believe some shit – seems to have really set you off. You’ve admitted confirmatory bias before. I thought you might have learned something from that, but you don’t seem to. You seem to just want to strike up your familiar denials again, as with the CW thread.

 

You say you’re just interested in truth. Great, that’s commendable. Asking questions of power is great, but you need to have the courage to accept the answers, not ignore them when they don’t tally with your beliefs. More importantly you need to have the mental tools to process the information. I’m not convinced you do have these tools. Actually, most people don't, it takes serious education to gain them. I think you probably have the integrity but I’m not sure you’re equipped to argue these points at anything other than a base, Internet-free-for-all level, much less author a book.

 

To my knowledge, you have absolutely no expertise, nor any training in how to deal with the information you’re talking about ‘researching’. You don’t even have training in how to conduct research properly. So if you’re not an expert, and you don’t have the tools to deal with it, nor knowledge about how to conduct research in an academic process, how can you write a book? What are you hoping to uncover? What are you hoping to teach your readers? Your posts are often just quotes from YouTube posters or Guardian comments or blogs and vlogs or news articles. How are you going to offer your own views if you don’t have the expertise to back it up.

 

From what I can tell, you’re predisposed to believe conspiracies. There are a number of psychological factors, which make people with certain character traits, and certain experiences, believe these things; you exhibit some of them on here. There's a decent video of a Phychology PhD researcher explaining people's psychology often leads them to being much more likely to believe conspiracy theories. You should check it out and see if it strikes a cord. Probably not.

[Red Phoenix]

Finally you answered, cheers.

 

It's good to know your take on it. One thing that was confusing me was that I thought you were going to attempt to go into detail about how it wasn't so much a fault of security, and run through several of those points. I can't remember exactly what I've said regarding 9/11, but the way I see it is that there's a lot of different aspects to the whole thing that would take quite a bit of time to look at if you were going to have a decent enough understanding to the point that you could definitely say one way or the other. That's why, and I don't really like this, I'm kind of on the fence when it comes to speaking about the whole thing.

 

I honestly think I'd need months of trying to learn more about the whole thing to say I was sure it was one way or the other. And yes, you could go back through the thread and find that I might have said something that doesn't agree with this. But this is how I honestly feel about 9/11 at the moment, and I don't see it changing for a decent while yet, if at all. And nope, like I said, I don't like that being the case. But who does? We'd all like to know, but it's unlikely that any of us here really do.

 

I posted that quote because it seemed to easily sum up several of the facts about how security failed, and also what the official story is. I don't tend to believe the official story at all, but at the same time, there's so many different theories going around that it reminds me of the UFO field at times. So I don't tend to believe any of the theories either. There's just a barrage of different ideas, every detail seems to have plenty of arguments, and the whole subject is clearly one that winds people up and creates a lot of division. I simply don't see the point in saying it "was" an inside job, but that doesn't mean I'm going to refrain from posting/quoting about parts of it that I think make the official story odd.

 

As for the paragraphs at the end : I get that you don't think I know what I'm doing enough to research, but I don't see why your post has to finish on so many words about me and what I'm doing. Maybe you're trying to help though in some way, and fair enough if so. So I'll try to explain :

 

Research to me isn't and never will be about academic qualifications, or having to have specialized training. Even though you can learn a lot by doing that, and do things that people without that training can't. I think that to write a book especially though, it's like a skill. The more you practice, the better you get. Of course there's going to be mistakes along the way, but if you stick at it, and repeatedly go back to looking at the same areas over and over again, from as many angles as you can think of, and you don't make the whole thing biased because of some vague belief, etc, it can work. And I don't think it's that rare either, I think a lot of people around the world write books that require a fair bit of research that work, and without degrees, specialized training, etc. I do think you have to be determined and patient though, and that it can take a lot of time.

 

I also think that a key thing is that you have to have a good enough idea about what you're writing about, and be able to write about it in a way that's actually helping somebody wanting to learn about the subject. Of course you can have very simple research, and you can have extremely specialized research. At no point did I say that what I was attempting would be the latter, and it's not even what I want to do. I'm focusing on more of a general type of research that I think can give people information across quite a big range, instead of specializing in one area. This is partly because I think that you often need to look at things from many areas to get a better understanding of the bigger picture. And no, I don't think I know "the big picture". I do think I have a better idea of how several areas work though, and that's what I'll try to share with what I write.

 

Anyway, you know where my site is now, and as time passes, if you read what's there you'll be able to get a good enough idea of what I'm doing. If you think it's good, fine. If you think it's shit, also fine. Right now there's not much there, but eventually, it should be fairly clear what type of content and style the book will have.

 

Hopefully we're about done anyway, as we've clearly both messed the last few pages of this thread up quite a bit. And cheers again for posting that.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Finally you answered, cheers.

Finally, yes. Less than 24 hours after my initial comment, most of which was night time. Finally.

 

Maybe you're trying to help though in some way, and fair enough if so.

I'm trying to show you that being an author, a researcher, is more than firing up Google and reading some stuff people say 'neath YouTube videos. It's more than linking to a few websites, regardless of credibility. To be able to do it takes understanding, to be able to do it properly and credibly takes skill and experience.

 

Research to me isn't and never will be about academic qualifications

'To you' doesn't matter. It's not about qualifications, it's about having the understanding of what research is and discovering what it actually means as a form of systematic intelligence gathering. It's an actually 'thing' you know, not just a word that means 'look stuff up'. If you're going to create a site called Research Notes, do yourself a favour and do a bit of reading on what it means to research and how to form and argument.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Research_methods

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_research

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology#Empiricism

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning

 

I'm not asking you to go to Uni for a decade, but just scratch the surface. You'll be glad you did, because what you wrote above as a response is, with the greatest will in the world, a load of gobbledygook.

 

 

 

 

,

[Red Phoenix]

a researcher, is more than firing up Google and reading some stuff people say 'neath YouTube videos

 

Erm, thanks Numero, but you obviously know that I understand that there's a bit more to research than looking at youtube comment sections.

 

The general aspect of researching can be described as looking for information, and if you continue to gain skill you also understand how to approach and carry out that research in a more systematic and better way. It can also be called your "style", or your "method" of research. If you think I'm writing gobbledygook we'll just agree to disagree. And yes, I've looked at most of those pages, thanks though.

 

If you're going to repeatedly make out like I'm clueless then it's hard to communicate with you, but it's fine, we don't have to repeatedly discuss whether or not I can research. You can just see what I end up with as time passes instead.

[Strontium]

The big problem as I see it, RP, is that instead of starting off from a neutral perspective and seeing what the evidence supports, you're usually looking for the conspiracy from the off, and ignoring or downgrading anything that doesn't support it.

 

A genuine seeker of truth starts off with no preconceptions, which is why the term "conspiracy theorist" tends to be a pejorative one.