all conspiracy theorists are insane.......right?

anyone who suggests a theory involving history and politics, that is not the official story, or the accepted mythology, must be instantly dismissed as insane, and one need only shut them down with ridicule and the labels, 'crackpots', 'nutballs', paranoid schizophrenics, etc. and instead of considering what they might be saying, they must be immediately ignored and the rolling eyes sign given.

anyone who suggests that the official white house story is not the truth, on any given subject, is looked at suspiciously.

but guess what? some whacky theories turn out to be true. or based in truth. but one of the most powerful tools used against conspiracy theorists, is ridicule. if someone suggests 'bush knew', 15 people are ready to call you an idiot. if someone is bold enough to suggest that the 'hijackers' were not iraqis, but saudis, there are dozens who promptly poo poo the idea, and remind you that the 'official' story is good enough, and no further investigations, or speculations are needed.

it all boils down to: certain people accept the official story, without argument, and a certain other segment of people like to investigate, and not swallow every official story, as is.

but to simply write off someones suspicions with the wave of a hand isn't exactly fair. some of these crazy, wild-eyed tinfoilers are actually onto something.

as in a legal case, both sides get to make their points. then after both sides have made their points, one makes up one's own mind.

if someone suggests that bushco is making a stand for world domination and total fascistic control through world war three, some will agree, others will say, 'sure, sure, and elvis in on a u.f.o. with the loch ness monster'. but you know, they really are attempting to take over the globe. and ultimately, someone has to bear the burden of proof.

prove them right, or prove them wrong, but don't utterly dismiss them as idiots and sad, mentally defective morons.

- The bushies love to label those who have evidence against them as being partisan or a conspiracy nut. It's easy to do when the corporate media backs them up every step of the way.

if you don't believe it you're a "conspiracy theorist".

If I piss on your face and tell you it's raining, are you a conspiracy theorist if you accuse me of pissing in your face?

From the moment that I clicked on this thread to read it, black helicopters have been hovering over my house.

Coincidence? No way.

Just hovering over my house. Four.......no wait............. six of them. I'm being followed.



:scared: :scared: :scared: :scared:

exemplifies exactly what mopaul is talking about. Rather than discuss the issue, he trivializes it out of hand.

:puke:

>Rather than discuss the issue

Been there. Done that.

Those who believe in conspiracy theories can never believe anything other than what the conspiracy tells them to believe. To the conspiracy theorist, any evidences presented which disproves the conspiracy theory is just further evidence that the conspiracy theory itself is true, otherwise why would there be others trying to prove it is not true.

(Now someone can take the above statement and rearrange it to say something else. That's always fun!! :-) )

In the meanwhile, I'm gonna try and make a run for it.

Conspiracies don't exist. Wealth is not power. People with great wealth never use it to influence events or outcomes that would favour their wealth or increase the range of their influence. Everything just "happens."

:puke:

doesn't mean they're not out to get you. ...

... "is code for 'Unspeakable Truth.'"

Those who try to make sense of the Bush Organized Crime Family have a difficult time listing all the criminality. The late Danny Casolaro called it an "Octopus." This late artist Mark Lombardi turned to art:



Note the attention to detail:



Source:http://www.pierogi2000.com/flatfile/lombardi.html

Like Mr. Casolaro, Mr. Lombardi was a "suicide" victim.

If there is no motive or opportunity for said conspiracy, then it goes on my suspect list. For example: a death ray knocked down the space shuttle, WTC building 7 had a bomb in it, and the CIA bombed the Spanish train station.

Others: Hillary killed Vince Foster, Clinton ran drugs out of the Mena airport....and on and on.

on Sept 11th. Conspiracy theory my ass.

and I know I'm nuts.

At least you're being honest.

Too many of the theories are based on conjecture, not on anything you can put your hands on. ANd many proponents of Conspiracy theories act both defensive and self righteous when challenged on their beliefs. They don't like being challenged all that much.

I also liked this line.

"some whacky theories turn out to be true. or based in truth. but one of the most powerful tools used against conspiracy theorists, is ridicule. if someone suggests 'bush knew', 15 people are ready to call you an idiot. if someone is bold enough to suggest that the 'hijackers' were not iraqis, but saudis, there are dozens who promptly poo poo the idea, and remind you that the 'official' story is good enough, and no further investigations, or speculations are needed."

This is well worded. I mean you take a pretty unproven theory ("Bush Knew") and wedded it to a easily verified fact ("the 'hijackers' were not iraqis, but saudis"). Pretty clever there; my hats off to you. It makes people who think that the case for Bush "Knowing" hasn't been proved seem as ignorent as people who believe that Iraqis hijacked the planes on 9-11. A skillful piece of rhetorical slight-of-hand.

Conspiracies happen. It is the capital C Conspiracies that are unlikely. There is a difference between a group of people sureptiously guiding a few events to their advantage and an organized structure that controls every single deed within a series of events.

When people start to theorize that a conspiracy is so in control that every single aspect has been coordinated by the conspirators you are beginning to see the psychology of the theorist in play rather than a likely conspiracy. This does not mean they are insane. It is just an aspect of the human mind.

The mind projects identity on to other individuals. Since we cannot experience their thoughts we have adopted the tactic of projecting our experential concept of what identity is onto those things we reasonably believe to have an identity as well. Our brains are well made for recognizing patterns. It is recognition of these patterns that allows us to learn that other people are individuals like ourselves (very early concept). Later on we begin to project identity onto all manner of things. We invent invisible friends. We give identity to favorite toys.

The trick about the brain is that it is geared for finding patterns. But the patterns it finds aren't always real. Evolution has geared us to err on the side of caution. Thus finding a false pattern is preferable to missing a pattern entirely(saber tooth tiger in the shadows etc).

Thus when looking at the society around us people may notice what they beleive to be patterns forming within complex structures. They project an identity onto these percieved patterns. They come to the belief that every action is the direct response to this percieved groups will.

Emotions and belief are tied together in the human brain. We experience things and attach emotional weight to them in our brain. These experiences accumulate and our brain considers them when determining what it believes to be true. The emotional weight associated with these experiences determines the value they have to our brain in weighing the issues before it. Thus there is a continuous multiplicity of ideas struggling for dominance and it is the ones with the greater weight on their side that take the place of our currently held beliefs.

From this we see that Conspiracy (capital C) theories take a firm hold in the believers mind. They usually revolve around a tramatic incident. It is this trama that elevates the emotional weight of the percieved patterns thus giving them greater weight than logic or reason. But because the person typically has some value for logic and reason they will go to extrodirnary lengths to try to make their conspiracy theory match up with logic in some way.

a snip:

Perhaps the biggest hidden reason people don't make the paranoid shift is that knowledge brings responsibility. If we acknowledge that an inner circle of ruling elites controls the world's most powerful military and intelligence system; controls the international banking system; controls the most effective and far-reaching propaganda network in history; controls all three branches of government in the world's only superpower; and controls the technology that counts the people's votes, we might be then forced to conclude that we don't live in a particularly democratic system. And then voting and making contributions and trying to stay informed wouldn't be enough. Because then the duty of citizenship would go beyond serving as a loyal opposition, to serving as a "loyal resistance"—like the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War, except that in this case the resistance to fascism would be on the side of the national ideals, rather than the government; and a violent insurgency would not only play into the empire's hands, it would be doomed from the start.

...

But as a paranoid, I'm ready to join the resistance. And the main reason is I no longer think that the "conspiracy" is much of a "theory."

...

That—whether it's heroin from Southeast Asia in the '60s and '70s, or cocaine from Central America and heroin from Afghanistan in the '80s, or cocaine from Colombia in the '90s, or heroin from Afghanistan today—no major CIA covert operation has ever lacked a drug smuggling component, and that the CIA has hired Nazis, fascists, drug dealers, arms smugglers, mass murderers, perverts, sadists, terrorists and the Mafia, is not "theory." It's fact.

...

That, on the morning of September 11, 2001: standard procedures and policies at the nation's air defense and aviation bureaucracies were ignored, and communications were delayed; the black boxes of the planes that hit the WTC were destroyed, but hijacker Mohammed Atta's passport was found in pristine condition; high-ranking Pentagon officers had cancelled their commercial flight plans for that morning; George H.W. Bush was meeting in Washington with representatives of Osama bin Laden's family, and other investors in the world's largest private equity firm, the Carlyle Group; the CIA was conducting a previously-scheduled mock exercise of an airliner hitting the Pentagon; the chairs of both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees were having breakfast with the chief of Pakistan's intelligence agency, who resigned a week later on suspicion of involvement in the 9/11 attacks; and the commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the United States sat in a second grade classroom for 20 minutes after hearing that a second plane had struck the towers, listening to children read a story about a goat, is not "theoretical." These are facts.

much more:

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/011004Hasty/011004hasty.html

and a lot of people STILL don't want to believe it.

Who would have thought:

That a group of low-level aides could run an operation like Iran-Contra?

That a multi-millionaire could finance the destruction of a President through his own fully controlled publishing house?

Willingness to believe in conspiracies is a learned trait. And the neocons have taught us well.

"anyone who suggests a theory involving history and politics, that is not the official story, or the accepted mythology, must be instantly dismissed as insane..."

not at all, especially if they have a reasoned argument based on facts. However if they come up with an impossible or unrealistic theory that has no corroborating evidence at all then I don't think those ideas should be treated seriously. IF I claimed the world was a flat disc support by four giant elephants that stand on the back of an immense turtle that swims between the stars I should not to expect to be taken seriously or have my views treated with respect.

It is up to the people who are making a claim to back it up with evidence and logical argument.

Pratchet Fan!!!

Prez Kennedy killed, Robert Kennedy, Martin L King, Senator Calahan, John Kennedy Jr., and of course, Senator Paul Wellstone. The blood thirsty trail for power and dynasty points to the bush family dynasty. They're the ones who befitted from the Kennedy deaths. They are also behind the anthax killings and attempted murder of Senator Dashal. And behind the character assassination of Prez Clinton and Mrs. Clinton.

it,most don't..however, many,many times on this website those who have called others nuts..tin foil hatters.. and my personal favorite, lunatic, have been brought to see the light.

If people have not figured out by now, that this administration is capable of any horrific or despicable act...then they simply have not been paying attention.

Since most on this site seem fairly intelligence, it is rather stunning how often they close their minds to any suggestion of impropriety by our government.

just because Bush may be "capable of any horrific or despicable act" it does not follow that every terrible thing that happens was brought about by the US Government.

I find it hilarious that the people who come up with these convoluted implausible theories are the ones who think that they are the ones with the "built in bullshit detectors" !

was brought about by the government and that was certainly not the intent of my post. That is just plain silly.

However, looking at the past history of our government's involvement in Iraq,Iran,Panama,Haiti etc..etc..in installing "new" governments, a certain scepticsm is at times warranted.

Yes I realise that you did not claim that every terrible thing was caused by Bush. I should have said "any given" instead of "every".

the more reasonable "theories" (which as a poster above has shown are, in fact, facts), and then they go absolutely into outerspace with their bullshit.

They then make everyone look bad. Which is what I see happening here.

The fact that the government lies to us, and the fact that the CIA has been involved in some truly atrocious and underhanded secretive activities (as we usually discover only over time), makes everybody's imaginations work overtime.

So we have plenty of evidence for MIHOP, at least enough evidence to seriously warrant an investigation, but nutcases start hollering about "missiles" shooting into the buildings and "controlled demolitions" in the other buildings, and they pile on like the nutcases they are, and they drown out the reasonable arguments.

People who are less informed just hear the nuts shouting and dismiss the entire case, thus tossing out the baby with the bathwater.

Paul Wellstone was murdered

LIHOP

I'm referring of course to the people who use tautological arguments to create elaborate scenarios that lack such things as evidence.

but some are so assured that they know the truth, they allow no room for doubt. what if THEY are wrong? even a busted clock is right twice a day. i could be wrong, but so could you.

for instance the pre 9-11 largest volume of put-options ever on the airlines who's planes were involved in 9-11. it's kinda hard to explain away, so it must be coincidence, not insider trading indicating prior knowledge.

US President J. Edgar Hoover
"The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists."

US President Franklin Delanor Roosevelt
"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way."

or whatever the hell Goebbels said.

associating currently popular conspiracy theories for which there is at least a significant amount of circumstantial evidence, with obvious nutcase theories such as, Bush's *implanted* earpiece, doppelgangers for all significant statesmen, hollow earth, UFOs, 4th lower astral dimension, etc.

But it is up to the individual to make that decision based on their own perceptions and evidence. We have had at least two generations now that have become accustomed to conspiracy theories dating from the JFK assasination. For years(and still in some cases) conspiracy theorists on this matter were dismissed as crackpots and crazy folk. But finally the overwhelming amount of evidence convinced the vast majority of people, including Congress in '76.

The reasons for wishing to disbelieve conspiracies vary. Some folks are just too stupid or out of it to comprehend what is going on. Others are too busy with their lives to pay attention or do research. Others are simply in denial, not wishing to to believe that members of their own government and society are evil enough to perpetrate an assasination, or a terrorist attack. The will deny, detract, and disbelieve no matter what weight of evidence one might put before them.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, you have people who see a conspiracy in every event. Yes, these people are out there, paranoid and/or crazy(and yes, LOL, I know some of you consider me in this category). But again, this phenomenon is due to the cynical upbringing of the past two generations. Can you at least understand these poor souls who find a conspiracy in every event? After all, being exposed to a lifetime of conspiracies, real and proven ones for every year of their lives is bound to make some people start to jump at their own shadow.

Nor is it folly to suspect the sinister hand of a conspiracy in everyday events, it is simply a sign of the deep and ongoing cycnicism of life in these United States. The only folly is to continue to belief in a particular conspiracy when the lack of evidence for said conspiracy is overwhelming. On the other hand, it is just as much a folly to continue to suspend disbelieve in a particular conspiracy when evidence continues to mount up that said conspiracy is true.

So like much of life, one has to approach conspiracies with balance and openness. Be willing to consider the most sinister possibilities, but also be willing to dismiss such possiblities when there is no corroborating evidence to be found. We live in a big bad sinister world, where plots and schemes are hatched everyday in every way. But then again, sometimes a coincedence is just that, a coincedence.

and another thing to consider: covering one's tracks to that there IS NO EVIDENCE of a crime. some covert operations are well planned out, including DENIABILITY. making sure, in advance, that there is no connection between the conspirators, and the crimes.

in other words, good alibis. if someone was not present at a murder, you can safely assume that someone is not guilty. not. someone can hire someone else to do the actual crime, and it is NEVER solved.

some crimes are so well planned out, they can never be solved.

A person is confronted with a series of interrelated facts and events. Some of the facts and events may seems relatively un-connected until a patern is discerned. Now, like any "theory" it must be either shot down for lack of internal cohesion or disproven by research and/or experimentation. Just because the theory is unpalatable to someone does not make that theory untenable. If saying that Bush and/or his underlings (superiors) knew in advance that the WTC attack was coming, and that the events (or lack of them, as in the NORAD business) points towards a conspiracy, then one shouldn't just say "nutcase", but should point out how the theory doesn't hold water or is inconsistant with its own structure or the supporting facts. Dismissing a theory to explain undetermined events or occurances is just as "assinine" as the theory, itself, may prove to be. The fact that a theory is later disproved does not negate the validity of the theory postulation.