Conspiracy Theorists vs Debunkers

[Reluctantly]

In the end, conspiracy theorists don't legitimately account for situations, and debunkers don't assuage the inner doubts people have, when it comes to most controversial and unexplained events.

Unless there is incontrovertible evidence, or the situation is imperative it's probably best to let people believe what they already believe, and not waste the effort.

Maybe I'm partial, but the thing is, if there is a trail of evidence to back up all the claims, they should be taken seriously no matter if it's from the debunkers or the conspiracy theorists.

Conspiracy Theorists then, if they could provide that trail, can get taken seriously. But if the debunkers can provide an evidence trail for what is commonly accepted as the truth, there is no requirement for them to assuage the other claims if all the conspiracy theorists have are reasoned conjectures. I suppose when both sides can provide an evidence trail that that is when things become really suspicious from both sides and they both then have somewhat of an obligation to each other to assuage doubts.

That said though, there are conspiracy theories I hold in more esteem than what is accepted as the truth. Take Obama, for instance; I'm more inclined to believe the historical accuracy of what I saw in 2016: Obama's America because otherwise all I have to go on is a biased autobiography he wrote himself, which is obviously going to paint his history in a certain positive light and gloss over anything that could be construed negatively (it's part of being human, we all do this). But that's not to say I agree with everything they concluded about him from his history in the movie; it was clearly used to attack him and make him look like a socialist who is intent on destroying the US for the good of the rest of the world, but they showed an evidence trail of his history and who he interacted with and what cultures he immersed himself in and what his influences were, whereas no one who supports Obama has ever openly addressed such things. His supporters however, are very keen on doing this for political opponents, which is really tiresome because they do no seek an impartial understanding. But because of this, I do form my own opinion about what his particular kind of philosophical motivations are and why I think it compromises his judgment in some ways (probably making me a conspiracy theorist), but I don't trust any of you with knowing that. I don't need another jerk to misconstrue the motivations behind my opinion and decide that makes me a Republican when all it really means is that I can separate Presidents from their parties and see them as individuals, rather than the culmination of their party beliefs.

In some ways though, I guess US politics is then like having the debunkers and the conspiracy theorists at each other's throats with evidence trails that contradict each other in various ways, making the whole question of whether or not the truth then even really matters as something prominent in my mind. They both have an obligation to assuage the other's doubts, but can't seem to agree on how to do that. But in such cases, as a human being with my own thoughts, I still have to find a way to come to my own conclusions in order to act. I guess that's the irony then. It's like having the blind trying to sword fight with each other, but they can't even see who is truly on their side; who knows what will result and it probably won't go cleanly or end with much sense or reason to it. It will be ugly, and it always seems to be.

 

[Felan]

Given any event one can, with enough time and effort, find a number of connections. When those connections are put into a narrative, it seems like too much of a coincidence to have not been a conspiracy. The narrative constructed in this way seems persuasive, though there is zero truth to the conspiracy.

I assert that the best lies are truths. And conspiracies rely on this sort of lie. Find enough little truths that seem to add up to a steered for lie. The theory of six degrees of seperation suggests how easy it is to find a thread to pull at and create a narrative rather quickly of some sinister activity.

I sometimes wonder if people are just so terrified of the randomness of life that the idea of someone or something controlling everything or most things or just the important things appeals to them. I guess if it is some malovent organization they at least feel they could do something about it.

 

[Teohrn]

@Teohrn

1) The Bush administration is not the Kennedy administration.

The Bush administration was more unethical, and would perhaps be more likely to go that far. Still, this is only a possibility and guesswork.

2) September 11th proved a pretext for war and a restriction of civil liberties (e.g., PATRIOT Act).

Definitely. That 9/11 was taken advantage of is undoubtedly true. But why should Silverstein be of any concern to the state? What made Silverstein relevant to the US government in any sort of way?

3) September 11th, if preordained or planned, shares features with Operation Northwoods.

Yet it doesn't prove anything. This can be used to explain any terrorist attack as a conspiracy. Obviously they would have similarities seeing as they're both terrorist attack operations. And don't forget that WTC had been attacked (by al-Qaeda) before. In fact, there had been made several similar plans by al-Qaeda before.

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

4) Larry Silverstein could have simply possessed foreknowledge and cashed in.

How and why? Notice how you reject the idea of lucky coincidence, yet your views are based on possibilities and ambiguities. There's a lack of substance.

5) I do know something about controlled demolitions

Including how they look like?

Seriously though, there's nothing that points towards there being any controlled demolition. There's simply nothing aberrant about how the buildings fell, quite the contrary. How does one even judge if it's a controlled demolition just by looks anyway?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8

6) Building seven has controlled demolition features.

Alright. Go on.

The fires were by no means insignificant, by the way. Moreover, building 7 had already been hit by a large chunk of one of the Twin Towers, severely damaging it. Then there is the storehouse of research which disagrees with you.

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Spoiler

Maybe I'm partial, but the thing is, if there is a trail of evidence to back up all the claims, they should be taken seriously no matter if it's from the debunkers or the conspiracy theorists.

Conspiracy Theorists then, if they could provide that trail, can get taken seriously. But if the debunkers can provide an evidence trail for what is commonly accepted as the truth, there is no requirement for them to assuage the other claims if all the conspiracy theorists have are reasoned conjectures. I suppose when both sides can provide an evidence trail that that is when things become really suspicious from both sides and they both then have somewhat of an obligation to each other to assuage doubts.

Sure people should seriously consider evidence if it's substantial, but often times theorists or debunkers may be too emotionally invested and focused on their position being right, rather than what's the truth / accurate. If a situation isn't that important though it doesn't really matter, that's why I'd prefer to leave other people's beliefs alone.

Personally I'd be interested in Roswell/aliens, Area 51, and Egypt's pyramids, but information on these is so sparse and illusory, there probably will never be a trail of evidence either way.


It's interesting though that conspiracies usually get the burden of proof, which is right, but when it comes to politics, I'd say governments owe the citizens transparency and accountability. Of course it's absurd to think they'd ever work towards that, especially the U.S. government.

Spoiler

That said though, there are conspiracy theories I hold in more esteem than what is accepted as the truth. Take Obama, for instance; I'm more inclined to believe the historical accuracy of what I saw in 2016: Obama's America because otherwise all I have to go on is a biased autobiography he wrote himself, which is obviously going to paint his history in a certain positive light and gloss over anything that could be construed negatively (it's part of being human, we all do this). But that's not to say I agree with everything they concluded about him from his history in the movie; it was clearly used to attack him and make him look like a socialist who is intent on destroying the US for the good of the rest of the world, but they showed an evidence trail of his history and who he interacted with and what cultures he immersed himself in and what his influences were, whereas no one who supports Obama has ever openly addressed such things. His supporters however, are very keen on doing this for political opponents, which is really tiresome because they do no seek an impartial understanding. But because of this, I do form my own opinion about what his particular kind of philosophical motivations are and why I think it compromises his judgment in some ways (probably making me a conspiracy theorist), but I don't trust any of you with knowing that. I don't need another jerk to misconstrue the motivations behind my opinion and decide that makes me a Republican when all it really means is that I can separate Presidents from their parties and see them as individuals, rather than the culmination of their party beliefs.

In some ways though, I guess US politics is then like having the debunkers and the conspiracy theorists at each other's throats with evidence trails that contradict each other in various ways, making the whole question of whether or not the truth then even really matters as something prominent in my mind. They both have an obligation to assuage the other's doubts, but can't seem to agree on how to do that. But in such cases, as a human being with my own thoughts, I still have to find a way to come to my own conclusions in order to act. I guess that's the irony then. It's like having the blind trying to sword fight with each other, but they can't even see who is truly on their side; who knows what will result and it probably won't go cleanly or end with much sense or reason to it. It will be ugly, and it always seems to be.

Yeah, in politics, opponents are more ready to expose faults which is an objective move somewhat, but at the same time both sides are likely to twist contexts and other subjective factors in their favor.

The best thing to do is synthesize; take the past actions of politicians with their presently demonstrated integrity, but try to subtract the biased propaganda of both sides. I guess this is universal though when you are judging a person's character or policies.


Still, as long as these politicians are coming out of the Democratic or Republican parties, in my opinion, they are just as corrupt as the next one. Might as well base on your vote/support on superficial surface differences, because that's all that's different anyway.

but I don't trust any of you with knowing that. I don't need another jerk to misconstrue the motivations behind my opinion and decide that makes me a Republican when all it really means is that I can separate Presidents from their parties and see them as individuals, rather than the culmination of their party beliefs.

Politics isn't that important to me..

 

[snafupants]

@Teohrn

There wasn't anything convincing or revelatory about your last post. Most of the points are perfectly compatible with my own. On point three, you seem totally disoriented; other points are moot. When you actually analyze my points, you will see that they tend to be quite conservation. The first two are absolutely true, and the next two are pretty uncontroversial and hypothetical.

 

[ohrtonz]

There are some issues that many may have thought of as conspiracy theories, but are not. Because the issues are being debated in congress and representatives are demanding answers and clarification on the administrations actions. (e.g. drone strikes on American citizens on U.S. soil, gun confiscation "youre silly the govment isn't coming for your guns", people in government flat out saying they wish they could take all the guns or have us turn them all in)