Author Topic: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?  (Read 12653 times)

Insane Bolt

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 442
    • View Profile
Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
« Reply #150 on: September 13, 2018, 02:37:48 PM »
It truly is depressing. Who would ever have predicted that the information age would produce as much misinformation as enlightenment. People genuinely do not seem to have any process for sorting junk, babble and flake from genuine controversy or, much worse, from fact. And it's only going to get worse in a world where virtually everybody under thirty gets their "information" from social media. That's how we get Alex Jones and, ultimately, Trump and Brexit.

For those who genuinely don't know how to sort data and information from fake news and wacko, crackpot nonsense, would you please google a claim and check who disagrees with it and apply some level of judgement to the relative values of the opinions of a blogger in his bedroom and a peer reviewed expert.

Or, at the very least, if it's too much to ask you to check opposing opinions before you inflict your daft ravings on this forum, run them past at least one of these:
https://www.skeptic.com/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-conspiracy-theory-director/
https://skeptoid.com/
https://www.snopes.com/

Hardy, what in your opinion makes snopes credible? I'm a total sceptic and I'm curious as to how they came about and who funds them?

Snapchap

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 187
    • View Profile
Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
« Reply #151 on: September 13, 2018, 02:46:16 PM »
There is no comparison between allegations of collusion in the wee six and the 9/11 conspiracy theories.
You canít compare 9/11 to collusion in the north as the British are well capable of such atrocities against Irish nationalists 

And yet the fact remains that in the early years of the conflict, the notion that the British state was colluding in the assassinations of Irish citizens WAS deemed a conspiracy theory. It's very easy to say now, purely with the benefit of hindsight, that it's not a fair comparison with contemporary conspiracy theories. But to my mind the real reason you lads are saying it's not a 'fair' comparison is because the collusion one was proven to have been true - possibly to a greater extent that anyone even anticipated - and that makes it hard to square it with what are regarded today as outlandish theories surrounding other events, due to the outlandish nature of them. But that's the essence of conspiracy theories. They are generally outlandish. That the collusion one has since been vindicated doesn't mean it was any less of a sneered at as an outlandish conspiracy theory in the early days. Hindsight should show that some previously termed 'outlandish conspiracy theories' can, occasionally, turn out to be true.

P.S. My initial post was not necessarily intended as a comparison with 9/11. It was in response to 'Trailer' who asked for an example of a conspiracy theory which turned out to be true, since he didn't appear to believe there was such any such examples.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2018, 02:51:35 PM by Snapchap »

J70

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11010
    • View Profile
Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
« Reply #152 on: September 13, 2018, 03:09:55 PM »
There is no comparison between allegations of collusion in the wee six and the 9/11 conspiracy theories.
You canít compare 9/11 to collusion in the north as the British are well capable of such atrocities against Irish nationalists 

And yet the fact remains that in the early years of the conflict, the notion that the British state was colluding in the assassinations of Irish citizens WAS deemed a conspiracy theory. It's very easy to say now, purely with the benefit of hindsight, that it's not a fair comparison with contemporary conspiracy theories. But to my mind the real reason you lads are saying it's not a 'fair' comparison is because the collusion one was proven to have been true - possibly to a greater extent that anyone even anticipated - and that makes it hard to square it with what are regarded today as outlandish theories surrounding other events, due to the outlandish nature of them. But that's the essence of conspiracy theories. They are generally outlandish. That the collusion one has since been vindicated doesn't mean it was any less of a sneered at as an outlandish conspiracy theory in the early days. Hindsight should show that some previously termed 'outlandish conspiracy theories' can, occasionally, turn out to be true.

P.S. My initial post was not necessarily intended as a comparison with 9/11. It was in response to 'Trailer' who asked for an example of a conspiracy theory which turned out to be true, since he didn't appear to believe there was such any such examples.

Iím talking about plausibility.

British collusion with loyalists was easily accomplished given the common enemy and the sympathies of the various parties.

The various 9/11 conspiracies require involvement of people across numerous agencies along with ignorance of many, many more people who also worked in those agencies and locations. They then require a massive cover-up and continued silence, seventeen years later. Add to that the failure of the conspiracy theorists to provide even a scintilla of legitimate evidence to support their half-baked claims.

trailer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
    • View Profile
Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
« Reply #153 on: September 13, 2018, 03:23:36 PM »
There is no comparison between allegations of collusion in the wee six and the 9/11 conspiracy theories.
You canít compare 9/11 to collusion in the north as the British are well capable of such atrocities against Irish nationalists 

And yet the fact remains that in the early years of the conflict, the notion that the British state was colluding in the assassinations of Irish citizens WAS deemed a conspiracy theory. It's very easy to say now, purely with the benefit of hindsight, that it's not a fair comparison with contemporary conspiracy theories. But to my mind the real reason you lads are saying it's not a 'fair' comparison is because the collusion one was proven to have been true - possibly to a greater extent that anyone even anticipated - and that makes it hard to square it with what are regarded today as outlandish theories surrounding other events, due to the outlandish nature of them. But that's the essence of conspiracy theories. They are generally outlandish. That the collusion one has since been vindicated doesn't mean it was any less of a sneered at as an outlandish conspiracy theory in the early days. Hindsight should show that some previously termed 'outlandish conspiracy theories' can, occasionally, turn out to be true.

P.S. My initial post was not necessarily intended as a comparison with 9/11. It was in response to 'Trailer' who asked for an example of a conspiracy theory which turned out to be true, since he didn't appear to believe there was such any such examples.

Translation - there are no outlandish conspiracy theories that have ever turned out to be proven true, but here's the time the British colluded and if you argue against this as a conspiracy theory you're siding with them.

I was really hoping for something like the Illuminate rigging the All Stars in 1984.

BennyCake

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5723
    • View Profile
Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
« Reply #154 on: September 13, 2018, 03:54:57 PM »
There is no comparison between allegations of collusion in the wee six and the 9/11 conspiracy theories.
You canít compare 9/11 to collusion in the north as the British are well capable of such atrocities against Irish nationalists 

And yet the fact remains that in the early years of the conflict, the notion that the British state was colluding in the assassinations of Irish citizens WAS deemed a conspiracy theory. It's very easy to say now, purely with the benefit of hindsight, that it's not a fair comparison with contemporary conspiracy theories. But to my mind the real reason you lads are saying it's not a 'fair' comparison is because the collusion one was proven to have been true - possibly to a greater extent that anyone even anticipated - and that makes it hard to square it with what are regarded today as outlandish theories surrounding other events, due to the outlandish nature of them. But that's the essence of conspiracy theories. They are generally outlandish. That the collusion one has since been vindicated doesn't mean it was any less of a sneered at as an outlandish conspiracy theory in the early days. Hindsight should show that some previously termed 'outlandish conspiracy theories' can, occasionally, turn out to be true.

P.S. My initial post was not necessarily intended as a comparison with 9/11. It was in response to 'Trailer' who asked for an example of a conspiracy theory which turned out to be true, since he didn't appear to believe there was such any such examples.

Translation - there are no outlandish conspiracy theories that have ever turned out to be proven true, but here's the time the British colluded and if you argue against this as a conspiracy theory you're siding with them.

I was really hoping for something like the Illuminate rigging the All Stars in 1984.

Define "proven to be true". I mean, are you waiting for CNN to report that the Bush administration carried out 9/11 or the CIA shot JFK? Or the BBC to report that the Brits colluded with loyalists to murder Pat Finucane or Miami show band?

They'll never admit such things, meaning theyll always be classed as conspiracy theories. And because they're still looked upon as conspiracy theiries, you're a nutjob if you believe them.

The mainstream media tell us what is a conspiracy theory is and what's not. Anything they don't want you to know the truth about, is a conspiracy/fake news.

dec

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1427
    • View Profile
Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
« Reply #155 on: September 13, 2018, 04:04:49 PM »
There is no comparison between allegations of collusion in the wee six and the 9/11 conspiracy theories.
You canít compare 9/11 to collusion in the north as the British are well capable of such atrocities against Irish nationalists 

And yet the fact remains that in the early years of the conflict, the notion that the British state was colluding in the assassinations of Irish citizens WAS deemed a conspiracy theory. It's very easy to say now, purely with the benefit of hindsight, that it's not a fair comparison with contemporary conspiracy theories. But to my mind the real reason you lads are saying it's not a 'fair' comparison is because the collusion one was proven to have been true - possibly to a greater extent that anyone even anticipated - and that makes it hard to square it with what are regarded today as outlandish theories surrounding other events, due to the outlandish nature of them. But that's the essence of conspiracy theories. They are generally outlandish. That the collusion one has since been vindicated doesn't mean it was any less of a sneered at as an outlandish conspiracy theory in the early days. Hindsight should show that some previously termed 'outlandish conspiracy theories' can, occasionally, turn out to be true.

P.S. My initial post was not necessarily intended as a comparison with 9/11. It was in response to 'Trailer' who asked for an example of a conspiracy theory which turned out to be true, since he didn't appear to believe there was such any such examples.

Translation - there are no outlandish conspiracy theories that have ever turned out to be proven true, but here's the time the British colluded and if you argue against this as a conspiracy theory you're siding with them.

I was really hoping for something like the Illuminate rigging the All Stars in 1984.

Define "proven to be true". I mean, are you waiting for CNN to report that the Bush administration carried out 9/11 or the CIA shot JFK? Or the BBC to report that the Brits colluded with loyalists to murder Pat Finucane or Miami show band?

They'll never admit such things, meaning theyll always be classed as conspiracy theories. And because they're still looked upon as conspiracy theiries, you're a nutjob if you believe them.

The mainstream media tell us what is a conspiracy theory is and what's not. Anything they don't want you to know the truth about, is a conspiracy/fake news.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/northernireland/9747132/Finucane-Who-knew-of-this-deniable-murder.html

"Last Wednesday, the Prime Minister told Parliament that the extent of state collusion in Finucaneís murder, was ďshockingĒ."

Snapchap

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 187
    • View Profile
Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
« Reply #156 on: September 13, 2018, 04:18:24 PM »
There is no comparison between allegations of collusion in the wee six and the 9/11 conspiracy theories.
You canít compare 9/11 to collusion in the north as the British are well capable of such atrocities against Irish nationalists 

And yet the fact remains that in the early years of the conflict, the notion that the British state was colluding in the assassinations of Irish citizens WAS deemed a conspiracy theory. It's very easy to say now, purely with the benefit of hindsight, that it's not a fair comparison with contemporary conspiracy theories. But to my mind the real reason you lads are saying it's not a 'fair' comparison is because the collusion one was proven to have been true - possibly to a greater extent that anyone even anticipated - and that makes it hard to square it with what are regarded today as outlandish theories surrounding other events, due to the outlandish nature of them. But that's the essence of conspiracy theories. They are generally outlandish. That the collusion one has since been vindicated doesn't mean it was any less of a sneered at as an outlandish conspiracy theory in the early days. Hindsight should show that some previously termed 'outlandish conspiracy theories' can, occasionally, turn out to be true.

P.S. My initial post was not necessarily intended as a comparison with 9/11. It was in response to 'Trailer' who asked for an example of a conspiracy theory which turned out to be true, since he didn't appear to believe there was such any such examples.

Translation - there are no outlandish conspiracy theories that have ever turned out to be proven true, but here's the time the British colluded and if you argue against this as a conspiracy theory you're siding with them.

I was really hoping for something like the Illuminate rigging the All Stars in 1984.

Trailer, are you actually denying that collusion was once regarded as a conspiracy theory and republican propaganda?

trailer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
    • View Profile
Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
« Reply #157 on: September 13, 2018, 04:19:38 PM »
There is no comparison between allegations of collusion in the wee six and the 9/11 conspiracy theories.
You canít compare 9/11 to collusion in the north as the British are well capable of such atrocities against Irish nationalists 

And yet the fact remains that in the early years of the conflict, the notion that the British state was colluding in the assassinations of Irish citizens WAS deemed a conspiracy theory. It's very easy to say now, purely with the benefit of hindsight, that it's not a fair comparison with contemporary conspiracy theories. But to my mind the real reason you lads are saying it's not a 'fair' comparison is because the collusion one was proven to have been true - possibly to a greater extent that anyone even anticipated - and that makes it hard to square it with what are regarded today as outlandish theories surrounding other events, due to the outlandish nature of them. But that's the essence of conspiracy theories. They are generally outlandish. That the collusion one has since been vindicated doesn't mean it was any less of a sneered at as an outlandish conspiracy theory in the early days. Hindsight should show that some previously termed 'outlandish conspiracy theories' can, occasionally, turn out to be true.

P.S. My initial post was not necessarily intended as a comparison with 9/11. It was in response to 'Trailer' who asked for an example of a conspiracy theory which turned out to be true, since he didn't appear to believe there was such any such examples.

Translation - there are no outlandish conspiracy theories that have ever turned out to be proven true, but here's the time the British colluded and if you argue against this as a conspiracy theory you're siding with them.

I was really hoping for something like the Illuminate rigging the All Stars in 1984.

Define "proven to be true". I mean, are you waiting for CNN to report that the Bush administration carried out 9/11 or the CIA shot JFK? Or the BBC to report that the Brits colluded with loyalists to murder Pat Finucane or Miami show band?

They'll never admit such things, meaning theyll always be classed as conspiracy theories. And because they're still looked upon as conspiracy theiries, you're a nutjob if you believe them.

The mainstream media tell us what is a conspiracy theory is and what's not. Anything they don't want you to know the truth about, is a conspiracy/fake news.

Finally, something I can agree with.

Hardy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14826
    • View Profile
Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
« Reply #158 on: September 13, 2018, 04:32:17 PM »
Building 7 was not hit by any plane.
The Fire commander leading the fight on the day, said that "the fires in WTC 7 were under control and only needed 2 teams to put it out". He called for the area command to assign the teams to fight the fire. They started to put the fires out, only to be told after half an hour to abandon their positions, and evacuate the building. They argued with the commanders that the fires were almost out, but the commanders radioed they had to evacuate immediately as the building was going to collapse and trap them in it. They radioed back saying they (The commanders) were talking rubbish as there was very little damage to the building and there was no way a collapse was imminent. They were then told not to argue but to evacuate immediately. Leave everything, run. About 5 minutes after evacuating the building it collapsed symmetrically to the ground into it's own footprint.
There are dozens of videos on YTube where firemen talk about what they heard and saw, as they evacuated the building. They describe hearing dozens of explosions from the top of the building on every floor all the way to the bottom. They also describe these explosions as exactly like a demolition.
None of this was ever mentioned in the NIST reports, where they completely ignored any and all testimony regarding explosions, not just in building seven but WTC 1 and 2.

As for the assertion that  multiple structural steel support beams were sheered by an Aluminum can, I guess we will never know because the evidence of what happened to the steel was never gathered due to the steel being removed immediately from the scene of the crime. Removal of evidence from a crime scene is a capital offence btw. Coverup anyone....

This is just f**king bananas. Take a break from the internet lad.
Don't think it's that far-fetched myself

Saying that the American government blew up Building 7 is not far fetched? You're on a level with Willie Frazier and Jim Corr. Good company.

Worth noting that Willie Frazer (among plenty of others) maintained that state collusion was a conspiracy theory. There are still those who would accuse you of mad conspiracy theories for suggesting that the British State orchestrated the slaughter of innocent civilians in Dublin & Monaghan in May 1974, for instance.

I'm not suggesting I necessarily believe the 9/11 conspiracy theories, but if the world was made up solely of people who sneered at every seemingly outlandish conspiracy theory, it would be a dangerous world where states could get away with a lot more than what we already now know they have been up to.

Exactly. It's like Bush said once, telling people not to believe these conspiracy theories... You're either with us or you're with the terrorists. So you're not a proper American if you question 9/11. Clever propaganda line.

Can anyone name one outlandish conspiracy theory that was sneered at and has since been proven true?


I don't know how outlandish conspiracies have to be to qualify, but there was the gulf of Tonkin incident, in which US government officials knowingly deceived the public leading to the Vietnam war.  https://www.usni.org/magazines/navalhistory/2008-02/truth-about-tonkin   And for both the Gulf war and the Iraq war, there were orchestrated attempts to deceive the public about the need to go to war. 
When people in power collude secretly to achieve aims that are not in the public interest, what is that only a conspiracy?

Yes - a REAL conspiracy. What is your point?
I studied deeply in the philosophies and religions, but cheerfulness kept breaking through - L.Cohen

Hardy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14826
    • View Profile
Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
« Reply #159 on: September 13, 2018, 04:42:00 PM »
It truly is depressing. Who would ever have predicted that the information age would produce as much misinformation as enlightenment. People genuinely do not seem to have any process for sorting junk, babble and flake from genuine controversy or, much worse, from fact. And it's only going to get worse in a world where virtually everybody under thirty gets their "information" from social media. That's how we get Alex Jones and, ultimately, Trump and Brexit.

For those who genuinely don't know how to sort data and information from fake news and wacko, crackpot nonsense, would you please google a claim and check who disagrees with it and apply some level of judgement to the relative values of the opinions of a blogger in his bedroom and a peer reviewed expert.

Or, at the very least, if it's too much to ask you to check opposing opinions before you inflict your daft ravings on this forum, run them past at least one of these:
https://www.skeptic.com/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-conspiracy-theory-director/
https://skeptoid.com/
https://www.snopes.com/

Hardy, what in your opinion makes snopes credible? I'm a total sceptic and I'm curious as to how they came about and who funds them?

They appear credible to me because I'm not aware of any instance where they misled, knowingly or otherwise. On the other hand, all (that I know of) of the myths and falsehoods they have debunked have been either deliberate attempts to mislead or misapprehensions of reality. That gives them a pretty high score on my credibility meter by comparison to conspiracy crackpots.
I studied deeply in the philosophies and religions, but cheerfulness kept breaking through - L.Cohen

Insane Bolt

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 442
    • View Profile
Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
« Reply #160 on: September 13, 2018, 04:57:54 PM »
Thanks Hardy.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristen-breitweiser/29-pages-revealed-corrupt_b_11033068.html?guccounter=1

https://nypost.com/2016/07/15/yes-the-saudi-government-helped-the-911-terrorists/

I'm going to ask what is for me a very obvious question.......why did America not go to war with Saudi Arabia?

dec

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1427
    • View Profile

Jell 0 Biafra

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 867
    • View Profile
Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
« Reply #162 on: September 13, 2018, 05:18:39 PM »
Building 7 was not hit by any plane.
The Fire commander leading the fight on the day, said that "the fires in WTC 7 were under control and only needed 2 teams to put it out". He called for the area command to assign the teams to fight the fire. They started to put the fires out, only to be told after half an hour to abandon their positions, and evacuate the building. They argued with the commanders that the fires were almost out, but the commanders radioed they had to evacuate immediately as the building was going to collapse and trap them in it. They radioed back saying they (The commanders) were talking rubbish as there was very little damage to the building and there was no way a collapse was imminent. They were then told not to argue but to evacuate immediately. Leave everything, run. About 5 minutes after evacuating the building it collapsed symmetrically to the ground into it's own footprint.
There are dozens of videos on YTube where firemen talk about what they heard and saw, as they evacuated the building. They describe hearing dozens of explosions from the top of the building on every floor all the way to the bottom. They also describe these explosions as exactly like a demolition.
None of this was ever mentioned in the NIST reports, where they completely ignored any and all testimony regarding explosions, not just in building seven but WTC 1 and 2.

As for the assertion that  multiple structural steel support beams were sheered by an Aluminum can, I guess we will never know because the evidence of what happened to the steel was never gathered due to the steel being removed immediately from the scene of the crime. Removal of evidence from a crime scene is a capital offence btw. Coverup anyone....

This is just f**king bananas. Take a break from the internet lad.
Don't think it's that far-fetched myself

Saying that the American government blew up Building 7 is not far fetched? You're on a level with Willie Frazier and Jim Corr. Good company.

Worth noting that Willie Frazer (among plenty of others) maintained that state collusion was a conspiracy theory. There are still those who would accuse you of mad conspiracy theories for suggesting that the British State orchestrated the slaughter of innocent civilians in Dublin & Monaghan in May 1974, for instance.

I'm not suggesting I necessarily believe the 9/11 conspiracy theories, but if the world was made up solely of people who sneered at every seemingly outlandish conspiracy theory, it would be a dangerous world where states could get away with a lot more than what we already now know they have been up to.

Exactly. It's like Bush said once, telling people not to believe these conspiracy theories... You're either with us or you're with the terrorists. So you're not a proper American if you question 9/11. Clever propaganda line.

Can anyone name one outlandish conspiracy theory that was sneered at and has since been proven true?


I don't know how outlandish conspiracies have to be to qualify, but there was the gulf of Tonkin incident, in which US government officials knowingly deceived the public leading to the Vietnam war.  https://www.usni.org/magazines/navalhistory/2008-02/truth-about-tonkin   And for both the Gulf war and the Iraq war, there were orchestrated attempts to deceive the public about the need to go to war. 
When people in power collude secretly to achieve aims that are not in the public interest, what is that only a conspiracy?

Yes - a REAL conspiracy. What is your point?

Simply that the claim that a democratically elected government would knowingly lead its people into war under false premises is/has been regarded as a conspiracy theory.  So they're examples of conspiracy theories that turned out to be true.

Insane Bolt

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 442
    • View Profile
Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
« Reply #163 on: September 13, 2018, 05:31:47 PM »

J70

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11010
    • View Profile
Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
« Reply #164 on: September 13, 2018, 05:32:41 PM »
Building 7 was not hit by any plane.
The Fire commander leading the fight on the day, said that "the fires in WTC 7 were under control and only needed 2 teams to put it out". He called for the area command to assign the teams to fight the fire. They started to put the fires out, only to be told after half an hour to abandon their positions, and evacuate the building. They argued with the commanders that the fires were almost out, but the commanders radioed they had to evacuate immediately as the building was going to collapse and trap them in it. They radioed back saying they (The commanders) were talking rubbish as there was very little damage to the building and there was no way a collapse was imminent. They were then told not to argue but to evacuate immediately. Leave everything, run. About 5 minutes after evacuating the building it collapsed symmetrically to the ground into it's own footprint.
There are dozens of videos on YTube where firemen talk about what they heard and saw, as they evacuated the building. They describe hearing dozens of explosions from the top of the building on every floor all the way to the bottom. They also describe these explosions as exactly like a demolition.
None of this was ever mentioned in the NIST reports, where they completely ignored any and all testimony regarding explosions, not just in building seven but WTC 1 and 2.

As for the assertion that  multiple structural steel support beams were sheered by an Aluminum can, I guess we will never know because the evidence of what happened to the steel was never gathered due to the steel being removed immediately from the scene of the crime. Removal of evidence from a crime scene is a capital offence btw. Coverup anyone....

This is just f**king bananas. Take a break from the internet lad.
Don't think it's that far-fetched myself

Saying that the American government blew up Building 7 is not far fetched? You're on a level with Willie Frazier and Jim Corr. Good company.

Worth noting that Willie Frazer (among plenty of others) maintained that state collusion was a conspiracy theory. There are still those who would accuse you of mad conspiracy theories for suggesting that the British State orchestrated the slaughter of innocent civilians in Dublin & Monaghan in May 1974, for instance.

I'm not suggesting I necessarily believe the 9/11 conspiracy theories, but if the world was made up solely of people who sneered at every seemingly outlandish conspiracy theory, it would be a dangerous world where states could get away with a lot more than what we already now know they have been up to.

Exactly. It's like Bush said once, telling people not to believe these conspiracy theories... You're either with us or you're with the terrorists. So you're not a proper American if you question 9/11. Clever propaganda line.

Can anyone name one outlandish conspiracy theory that was sneered at and has since been proven true?


I don't know how outlandish conspiracies have to be to qualify, but there was the gulf of Tonkin incident, in which US government officials knowingly deceived the public leading to the Vietnam war.  https://www.usni.org/magazines/navalhistory/2008-02/truth-about-tonkin   And for both the Gulf war and the Iraq war, there were orchestrated attempts to deceive the public about the need to go to war. 
When people in power collude secretly to achieve aims that are not in the public interest, what is that only a conspiracy?

Yes - a REAL conspiracy. What is your point?

Simply that the claim that a democratically elected government would knowingly lead its people into war under false premises is/has been regarded as a conspiracy theory.  So they're examples of conspiracy theories that turned out to be true.

To be regarded as a conspiracy theory, does the quality of the supporting evidence not matter?

I've never heard anyone saying that the contemporary claims that the Bush administration, with the assistance of the Blair government, was cooking the books/data to garner support in the run-up to the Iraq War, amounted to a conspiracy theory.

Maybe Bush and Blair were too nakedly fraudulent?

stew, god bless him (whatever happened to him?) used to roll out the Hillary conspiracy theories all the time, often to do with her murdering people, without a shred of supporting evidence.

To me, a conspiracy theory is where someone posits some outlandish explanation for something without offering any evidence beyond some poorly thought-through/half-baked, paranoid nonsense.

Christ, I remember someone on the board here, back in the day, claiming that the presence of a perfectly standard undercarriage structure on one of the WTC planes was some kind of attached munitions.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2018, 05:37:18 PM by J70 »