On February 19 2013 21:09 Tobberoth wrote: A conspiracy theorist basically say "I could believe X, or I could believe Y. X if FAR more probable, so I'll believe Y". Which sounds quite irrational IMO.
I think it isnt that easy they actually dont think one is more plausible than the other, they think the information leading to that conclusion is false and given knowingly.
Of course they don't believe it's more plausible, just like a lot of insane people believe they are perfectly sane.
The thing with conspiracy theories is that it doesn't matter if the information is given knowlingly. The fact that the conspiracy would have to be so massive is what makes it so improbable. Check the numbers on the people who have worked for NASA in relation to the moon landings. Now assume that every single one of them is lying about the moon landing, and has kept the secret that it's fake until now. That's all you need to realize how extremely improbable it is that the moon landings were faked, yet conspiracy theorists still believe that, for no apparent reason.
Ha yes i believe they could have also tricked them and only the astronauts as well as the studio team know they werent on the moon, ofcourse its impossible all those people would shut down but what if the rocket just orbit earth few weeks and the part of question (the actual landing on the moon) is the part wich is lied about.
The people working on it would actually believe everything went like shown in tv but 50 people know otherwise they are choosen becouse they are able to shut up and be quiet and let the rest of nasa/"The World" believe what they want to believe?
I know the moon landing is real becouse i checked every data avaible and came to the conclusion they would have made some error on the way.
And i dont start searching for them becouse we have those crazy conspiracy heads who would have found something to today as well as russia who has checked the data a 100 times probably ;D
That just makes it even more improbable. Many of the people working at NASA had extremely complicated jobs and are expert scientists in their field. You're basically saying that for the conspiracy theory to make any sense, about 50 people together were able to fool all of those experts and simulate the real situation for them, while at the same time making fake footage from the moon and streaming live.
It's so improbable that all the arguments against it happening suddenly become miniscule. You get to the point where actually going to the moon is easier than faking it.
You don't even need to go down that line of thinking. The astronauts left stuff behind on the moon, they left reflectors that people on earth use to measure the distance to the moon, and we aren't talking about a select few who "say" they have done the experiment. Literally anyone with a good telescope and a powerful enough laser can do the experiment, including myself. A friend of mine works for a university, he once borrowed some equipment and took about 20 of us out in to the sticks and we spent the night bouncing lasers off the reflectors on the moon.
Now I'm sure conspiracy theorists will say that the reflectors weren't put there by actual humans but were sent by rocket to help keep the conspiracy covered up, but why would you do that? Thousands of people were involved in going to the moon, the TV signal was relayed from the UK (Jodrell Bank observatory) back to the US when Armstrong landed, so basically you are saying that those people were either involved or tricked. The only problem with that being that Jodrell Bank confirmed the source of the transmission as being from the moon. Even Russia, engaged in the space race against the US and in the midst of the cold war, acknowledged the achievement. If it was good enough for the Russians, its good enough for everyone else.
It would be so much easier to actually send people to the Moon, that faking it wouldn't be worth doing. There is no way you could keep it all under wraps, not to mention actually getting to the moon is pretty simple in space travel terms, all you need is a vessel and Newtons equations for gravity and motion. Having spent billions of dollars on a launch vehicle, how can anyone think they sent it up to the moon without any people on board? Why would you do that?
I know the OP didn't mention this stuff, but its a pillar of the conspiracy theorist and is the shining light as to why these people are bonkers. I know there are real conspiracies but one so massive as the moon landings or 9/11 being planned by the US government are so bonkers that even bonkers people don't subscribe to them.
Sorry for asking but it was always only about the first landing on the moon didnt they left the mirror in a later mission? Its only about Apollo 11 in my opinion becouse USA lost every other race they really wanted to win that one against the russians therefore a motivation was there to fake it. Even when they could have done it but just needed 3 more month they might just fake it in fear the russians would might have a compareable plan on their hands. (wich as far as i know russian goverment wanted the USA make believe)
You making it quite too easy for yourself to throw that opinion out of the window from the very beginning.
I still believe tehy managed and congratulate the USA to have been the first to put a foot on the moon.
Why do we even discuss this here?
I'm summing up the entire series of landing in to one thing, having actually studied physics and being a massive NASA fan. Yes it was in later missions they put the reflectors but to say they faked the initial landing and then actually went there later is just as absurd, so simply by acknowledging the fact of the reflectors being there, you have to acknowledge the first landing. The US won the space race, its that simple. The Russians got to many things first but the race was to the moon and the US got there first, one of the things about a race is that it doesn't matter who gets to the half way point first, its about to makes it to the finish first.
Basically anyone can create a conspiracy theory, it is as easy as saying "hey did you hear? Obama is a muslim" and look how fast that one caught on. To say we didn't go to the moon is to basically negate the works of thousands of people across the world, not just those who worked for NASA but also the countless others who have worked in multitudes of scientific and engineering field over the last two centuries.
No, you didn't study physics. You don't even know what physics is. You cant even possibly get into real physics material until you get past graduate school. Sitting in a high school class room or watching a youtube video doesn't constitute studying physics. Studying physics implies you have dedicated your entire life into the field and you have become a renowned expert and are making discoveries in disciplines that only a handful of other people in the world can even comprehend. You have no idea what the life of a physicist is like, and you certainly are not a physicist and you don't know anything about physics.
You need to study language.
I sincerely hope you aren't a physicist. Your presumptions are disgusting and that kind of statement boggles my mind, are you implying you're a physicist, to what capacity? That you're better than him? What is your objective? Other than to sound like a bigot.
Your post is infuriating.
Notice how since telling me I didn't study physics, I replied stating that I had studied physics to degree level and how his post was ridiculous, as have a couple others and he has not been back to respond? The hallmark of an inferior intellect. "I'll make a statement that is utterly ridiculous and then not defend it because I can't"
On February 19 2013 22:57 KwarK wrote: [quote] Random people all over the world bounce signals off of mirrors planted on the surface of the moon all the time. My housemate who is an astrophysics student has needed to do it a few times. Denying the moon landing is willful ignorance, it's intellectually comparable to denying the moon itself. If you're going to go conspiracy, go big. NASA faked the moon.
kwark i would love to see a mod read my post carefully i was (past) thinking they might have faked it and i had my reasons behind it i wanna give you a insight about it and therefore i stated my old believes.
Those are stupid but not as stupid as you might think and therefore i wanted to give you a insight, i thought the threat is there for that.
Damn sometimes you make me mad kwark ;D have a nice day
It's not real because they would have made some error in faking it. It's real because there's shit up there which we put up there which you can check is there. Concluding it wasn't faked for dumb reasons isn't much better, you're missing the point which is that pretty much anyone can bounce stuff off of mirrors placed on the surface of the moon and check for themselves. Coming up with an a priori argument, even if it is also true (they couldn't have gotten away with faking it), misses the fact that needing that argument is massively idiotic.
Lol, please dont assume stuff wich isnt real the mirror wich was left behind was left behind at a later mission not apollo 11 to assume something is real becouse of stupid reasons is just massively idiotic as well kwark!
You would love to swing the hammer or close this wouldnt you?
Sorry, who exactly is denying one moon landing but accepting the others? I didn't realise that was a thing, it'd be pretty retarded.
No idea what a hammer has to do with anything.
You never read what i write do you? I never denied any moon landing. You sound retarded man you really do... Not saying you are but ignoring any explaination i give to you to insist on your first impression would be retarded. I explained how i thought it was fake 10 years ago. Im arguing for my 10 year younger self here who i believe is stupid as well, but you just not doing it right, Therefore you dont deserve any respect!
Or you insist on being a mod here to follow you blindly and accept everything you say as true and right wich i will never make!
You're arguing for your 10 year younger self, and KwarK is winning. Doesn't matter if you changed your mind/think your 10 year old self was stupid if you keep arguing for it and your arguments are being shot down. You can't say "I never denied any moon landing" when you are arguing for your 10 year younger self who DID deny the first moon landing but not the subsequent ones.
Well i dont argue that he was right i just told the arguments i had back then and he didnt made a propper point till now, you sound a little biased.
The points he is insisting on are just plain false: The mirror was plantet in a later mission than the first (wich is questioned the most), The argumends the doubters had were totally different we not even came there yet i just go step by step to the point i once reached.
Its pretty easy to take a shortcut and insist on being right becouse the other side is retarded its just not the way to avoid this oppinions overall. Its only a way to make them even stronger...
You actually all dont get my point and im fine with that im used to not be understand and i fear the truth might crack you all up
We all know the mirror was planted on later missions. The point is that it's dumb to accept later missions (where the mirror was planted) without accepting Apollo 11, and that is what Kwark is arguing for.
Well its the MOST importand race in human history to win it by faking it is not stupid at all. If you are able to land on it but not now but in 3 month its not stupid at all to fake it.
Man im out have fun all living in this buitifull world of trust.
And for the record russians were super close to sending someone to the Moon as well...
But they didn't. So any landing at all wins the race. It doesn't matter if you leave out any specific landing, because the other ones happened. Disproving Apollo 11, but accepting 12, 14, 15, 16, 17 is silly because it changes absolutely nothing.
On February 19 2013 22:59 Chilling5pr33 wrote: [quote] kwark i would love to see a mod read my post carefully i was (past) thinking they might have faked it and i had my reasons behind it i wanna give you a insight about it and therefore i stated my old believes.
Those are stupid but not as stupid as you might think and therefore i wanted to give you a insight, i thought the threat is there for that.
Damn sometimes you make me mad kwark ;D have a nice day
It's not real because they would have made some error in faking it. It's real because there's shit up there which we put up there which you can check is there. Concluding it wasn't faked for dumb reasons isn't much better, you're missing the point which is that pretty much anyone can bounce stuff off of mirrors placed on the surface of the moon and check for themselves. Coming up with an a priori argument, even if it is also true (they couldn't have gotten away with faking it), misses the fact that needing that argument is massively idiotic.
Lol, please dont assume stuff wich isnt real the mirror wich was left behind was left behind at a later mission not apollo 11 to assume something is real becouse of stupid reasons is just massively idiotic as well kwark!
You would love to swing the hammer or close this wouldnt you?
Sorry, who exactly is denying one moon landing but accepting the others? I didn't realise that was a thing, it'd be pretty retarded.
No idea what a hammer has to do with anything.
You never read what i write do you? I never denied any moon landing. You sound retarded man you really do... Not saying you are but ignoring any explaination i give to you to insist on your first impression would be retarded. I explained how i thought it was fake 10 years ago. Im arguing for my 10 year younger self here who i believe is stupid as well, but you just not doing it right, Therefore you dont deserve any respect!
Or you insist on being a mod here to follow you blindly and accept everything you say as true and right wich i will never make!
You're arguing for your 10 year younger self, and KwarK is winning. Doesn't matter if you changed your mind/think your 10 year old self was stupid if you keep arguing for it and your arguments are being shot down. You can't say "I never denied any moon landing" when you are arguing for your 10 year younger self who DID deny the first moon landing but not the subsequent ones.
Well i dont argue that he was right i just told the arguments i had back then and he didnt made a propper point till now, you sound a little biased.
The points he is insisting on are just plain false: The mirror was plantet in a later mission than the first (wich is questioned the most), The argumends the doubters had were totally different we not even came there yet i just go step by step to the point i once reached.
Its pretty easy to take a shortcut and insist on being right becouse the other side is retarded its just not the way to avoid this oppinions overall. Its only a way to make them even stronger...
You actually all dont get my point and im fine with that im used to not be understand and i fear the truth might crack you all up
We all know the mirror was planted on later missions. The point is that it's dumb to accept later missions (where the mirror was planted) without accepting Apollo 11, and that is what Kwark is arguing for.
Well its the MOST importand race in human history to win it by faking it is not stupid at all. If you are able to land on it but not now but in 3 month its not stupid at all to fake it.
Man im out have fun all living in this buitifull world of trust.
And for the record russians were super close to sending someone to the Moon as well...
But they didn't. So any landing at all wins the race. It doesn't matter if you leave out any specific landing, because the other ones happened. Disproving Apollo 11, but accepting 12, 14, 15, 16, 17 is silly because it changes absolutely nothing.
Why would they invest one more penny if they lost?
On February 19 2013 23:09 Chilling5pr33 wrote: Why do we even discuss this here?
Because this is exactly what this topic is about. Picking a mainstream common conspiracy theory and showing how dumb it is might just be the best way to indicate what conspiracy theories are all about.
If the OP want to make the case that being a conspiracy theorist makes you smart, he can't just ignore some popular conspiracy theories, he has to deal with them too. I'm not saying that OP believes the moon landing was faked, but if he wants to defend conspiracy theories as a concept, he has to defend that one as well.
I'm not any sort of conspiracy theorist, but flawed logic like this makes me so mad >.>
Being a conspiracy theorist means believing in at least one conspiracy theory. That doesn't mean the theorist in question believes all of them are true or has to defend all of them. He should be willing and able to defend only the ones that he believes are true!
Defending conspiracy theories as a concept does not require every theory to be true unless the person is making the argument that every conspiracy theory is actually true. That's where the flaw in your thinking lies.
On February 19 2013 21:12 Chilling5pr33 wrote: [quote]
I think it isnt that easy they actually dont think one is more plausible than the other, they think the information leading to that conclusion is false and given knowingly.
Of course they don't believe it's more plausible, just like a lot of insane people believe they are perfectly sane.
The thing with conspiracy theories is that it doesn't matter if the information is given knowlingly. The fact that the conspiracy would have to be so massive is what makes it so improbable. Check the numbers on the people who have worked for NASA in relation to the moon landings. Now assume that every single one of them is lying about the moon landing, and has kept the secret that it's fake until now. That's all you need to realize how extremely improbable it is that the moon landings were faked, yet conspiracy theorists still believe that, for no apparent reason.
Ha yes i believe they could have also tricked them and only the astronauts as well as the studio team know they werent on the moon, ofcourse its impossible all those people would shut down but what if the rocket just orbit earth few weeks and the part of question (the actual landing on the moon) is the part wich is lied about.
The people working on it would actually believe everything went like shown in tv but 50 people know otherwise they are choosen becouse they are able to shut up and be quiet and let the rest of nasa/"The World" believe what they want to believe?
I know the moon landing is real becouse i checked every data avaible and came to the conclusion they would have made some error on the way.
And i dont start searching for them becouse we have those crazy conspiracy heads who would have found something to today as well as russia who has checked the data a 100 times probably ;D
That just makes it even more improbable. Many of the people working at NASA had extremely complicated jobs and are expert scientists in their field. You're basically saying that for the conspiracy theory to make any sense, about 50 people together were able to fool all of those experts and simulate the real situation for them, while at the same time making fake footage from the moon and streaming live.
It's so improbable that all the arguments against it happening suddenly become miniscule. You get to the point where actually going to the moon is easier than faking it.
You don't even need to go down that line of thinking. The astronauts left stuff behind on the moon, they left reflectors that people on earth use to measure the distance to the moon, and we aren't talking about a select few who "say" they have done the experiment. Literally anyone with a good telescope and a powerful enough laser can do the experiment, including myself. A friend of mine works for a university, he once borrowed some equipment and took about 20 of us out in to the sticks and we spent the night bouncing lasers off the reflectors on the moon.
Now I'm sure conspiracy theorists will say that the reflectors weren't put there by actual humans but were sent by rocket to help keep the conspiracy covered up, but why would you do that? Thousands of people were involved in going to the moon, the TV signal was relayed from the UK (Jodrell Bank observatory) back to the US when Armstrong landed, so basically you are saying that those people were either involved or tricked. The only problem with that being that Jodrell Bank confirmed the source of the transmission as being from the moon. Even Russia, engaged in the space race against the US and in the midst of the cold war, acknowledged the achievement. If it was good enough for the Russians, its good enough for everyone else.
It would be so much easier to actually send people to the Moon, that faking it wouldn't be worth doing. There is no way you could keep it all under wraps, not to mention actually getting to the moon is pretty simple in space travel terms, all you need is a vessel and Newtons equations for gravity and motion. Having spent billions of dollars on a launch vehicle, how can anyone think they sent it up to the moon without any people on board? Why would you do that?
I know the OP didn't mention this stuff, but its a pillar of the conspiracy theorist and is the shining light as to why these people are bonkers. I know there are real conspiracies but one so massive as the moon landings or 9/11 being planned by the US government are so bonkers that even bonkers people don't subscribe to them.
Sorry for asking but it was always only about the first landing on the moon didnt they left the mirror in a later mission? Its only about Apollo 11 in my opinion becouse USA lost every other race they really wanted to win that one against the russians therefore a motivation was there to fake it. Even when they could have done it but just needed 3 more month they might just fake it in fear the russians would might have a compareable plan on their hands. (wich as far as i know russian goverment wanted the USA make believe)
You making it quite too easy for yourself to throw that opinion out of the window from the very beginning.
I still believe tehy managed and congratulate the USA to have been the first to put a foot on the moon.
Why do we even discuss this here?
I'm summing up the entire series of landing in to one thing, having actually studied physics and being a massive NASA fan. Yes it was in later missions they put the reflectors but to say they faked the initial landing and then actually went there later is just as absurd, so simply by acknowledging the fact of the reflectors being there, you have to acknowledge the first landing. The US won the space race, its that simple. The Russians got to many things first but the race was to the moon and the US got there first, one of the things about a race is that it doesn't matter who gets to the half way point first, its about to makes it to the finish first.
Basically anyone can create a conspiracy theory, it is as easy as saying "hey did you hear? Obama is a muslim" and look how fast that one caught on. To say we didn't go to the moon is to basically negate the works of thousands of people across the world, not just those who worked for NASA but also the countless others who have worked in multitudes of scientific and engineering field over the last two centuries.
No, you didn't study physics. You don't even know what physics is. You cant even possibly get into real physics material until you get past graduate school. Sitting in a high school class room or watching a youtube video doesn't constitute studying physics. Studying physics implies you have dedicated your entire life into the field and you have become a renowned expert and are making discoveries in disciplines that only a handful of other people in the world can even comprehend. You have no idea what the life of a physicist is like, and you certainly are not a physicist and you don't know anything about physics.
You need to study language.
I sincerely hope you aren't a physicist. Your presumptions are disgusting and that kind of statement boggles my mind, are you implying you're a physicist, to what capacity? That you're better than him? What is your objective? Other than to sound like a bigot.
Your post is infuriating.
Notice how since telling me I didn't study physics, I replied stating that I had studied physics to degree level and how his post was ridiculous, as have a couple others and he has not been back to respond? The hallmark of an inferior intellect. "I'll make a statement that is utterly ridiculous and then not defend it because I can't"
It was a pretty stupid statement which is ignorant of the specialisation that happens when you reach PhD level. Probably shows he never studied physics.
No I do not believe in tin foil hats, alien overlords, fake moon landings, or a looming zombie apocalypse.
Yes, I do believe JFK was killed by the CIA.
No I do not believe JFK was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald, because I have been to Dallas and the Book Depository was behind Kennedy and JFK was clearly shot from the front.
Yes I do believe the Federal Reserve was a conspiracy setup in the 1910-1913 period by the most prominent bankers on Wall Street and in London.
Yes I do believe the Council on Foreign Relations was setup by this same network as the American branch of the British Empire's Round Table groups. You can read Carroll Quigley's "The Anglo-American Establishment" for more on that whole history.
Yes I do believe the CIA was setup by the same network after WWII, because it is open history that the CIA received funding from people closely linked with this network like the Harriman interests even before the CIA was a legal entity, in the grey area of its existence between 1945 and 1947.
Yes I do believe the CIA carries out illegal and covert missions, under the supposed legal authority of the US constitution, for this network around the world and that that has been its primary mission since its inception.
Yes I do believe that this nexus of power constitutes a shadow government in the United States, because that is a term that has been used for decades by people in power themselves.
Yes I do believe this illegal covert faction is ruining the name of America around the world and driving it to militarism and economic ruin.
Yes I do believe we are fucked since alot of this stuff isnt even done by the CIA anymore since the privatization revolution in military affairs in the 2000s, making it so much harder to track and prove any wrongdoing. At least at the CIA was centralized. Now it is a hydra with 100 heads.
Yes I do realize that the CFR also has 100 brothers and sisters created by this same network, like the Heritage Foundation, and CATO Institute on the right, which constantly fight with each other, giving the illusion of separateness.
No I do not think 2 jetliners brought down 3 buildings on 9/11. The Twin Towers were two of the strongest buildings ever created and their collapse time was just seconds off from freefall, for 110 stories each. That means there was virtually no resistance the entire way down. That cannot happen without controlled demolition of the columns. And what about Building 7? There is no question that building was professionally demolished. It's symmetry and speed of collapse combined with its asymmetrical construction over a ConEd substation are more than enough proof to show that it only could have fallen that way with a controlled demolition.
Yes I do agree with the over 1700 Architects and Engineers who also question the collapses of the 3 towers on 9/11, as well as the numerous family members who still have not received any answers to their stack of questions regarding their loved ones murders.
OK I'm hungry I'll leave it at that for now but needless to say I am open to debate any and all points I have defended above.
On February 20 2013 00:26 KwarK wrote: [quote] It's not real because they would have made some error in faking it. It's real because there's shit up there which we put up there which you can check is there. Concluding it wasn't faked for dumb reasons isn't much better, you're missing the point which is that pretty much anyone can bounce stuff off of mirrors placed on the surface of the moon and check for themselves. Coming up with an a priori argument, even if it is also true (they couldn't have gotten away with faking it), misses the fact that needing that argument is massively idiotic.
Lol, please dont assume stuff wich isnt real the mirror wich was left behind was left behind at a later mission not apollo 11 to assume something is real becouse of stupid reasons is just massively idiotic as well kwark!
You would love to swing the hammer or close this wouldnt you?
Sorry, who exactly is denying one moon landing but accepting the others? I didn't realise that was a thing, it'd be pretty retarded.
No idea what a hammer has to do with anything.
You never read what i write do you? I never denied any moon landing. You sound retarded man you really do... Not saying you are but ignoring any explaination i give to you to insist on your first impression would be retarded. I explained how i thought it was fake 10 years ago. Im arguing for my 10 year younger self here who i believe is stupid as well, but you just not doing it right, Therefore you dont deserve any respect!
Or you insist on being a mod here to follow you blindly and accept everything you say as true and right wich i will never make!
You're arguing for your 10 year younger self, and KwarK is winning. Doesn't matter if you changed your mind/think your 10 year old self was stupid if you keep arguing for it and your arguments are being shot down. You can't say "I never denied any moon landing" when you are arguing for your 10 year younger self who DID deny the first moon landing but not the subsequent ones.
Well i dont argue that he was right i just told the arguments i had back then and he didnt made a propper point till now, you sound a little biased.
The points he is insisting on are just plain false: The mirror was plantet in a later mission than the first (wich is questioned the most), The argumends the doubters had were totally different we not even came there yet i just go step by step to the point i once reached.
Its pretty easy to take a shortcut and insist on being right becouse the other side is retarded its just not the way to avoid this oppinions overall. Its only a way to make them even stronger...
You actually all dont get my point and im fine with that im used to not be understand and i fear the truth might crack you all up
We all know the mirror was planted on later missions. The point is that it's dumb to accept later missions (where the mirror was planted) without accepting Apollo 11, and that is what Kwark is arguing for.
Well its the MOST importand race in human history to win it by faking it is not stupid at all. If you are able to land on it but not now but in 3 month its not stupid at all to fake it.
Man im out have fun all living in this buitifull world of trust.
And for the record russians were super close to sending someone to the Moon as well...
Well but your edit showcases the whole problem with the US vs USSR thing: The Russians (and no other nation) were ever to land on the moon. Also all the deep space missions were "made in the US". No other nation has accomplished such a feat but the US repeatedly showed they were capable of such a mission.
The USSR didn't got 2nd place, they never finished.
But back to your conspiracy thing: The russians surely were listening to the radio and detecting the signals (as were others). So they sure would have disclosed the fraud. (But only if they really were enemys and not both controlled by the Bilderbergers. . . .)
What i really believe is that the russians, while self not being able to land there, were trying to at least make it as expensive and recource intensive for the US to reach the moon they did so by faking data that they were pretty close to landing while abandoning the project long ago to save recources and money. The US feeling the pressure might have made something stupid like faking the last actual landing. The calculations the landing itself was a MEGA difficult task and just one little part not functioning properly would have put the whole mission and the lifes of the astronauts at risk. I would prefer the US to fake the landing than let see millions on earth how those brave man die live in TV.
Conspiracy theorists are a testament to how the human brain paints the world according to it's own motivations, it's evolved to bend reality to our own benefit, not to perceive it in it's entirety.
there are hundreds if not thousands of "conspiracy theories" trying to nail OP down to one is not going to work. I don't agree with everything OP said, but it seems like his point is this- considering more potential options is not necessarily a bad thing and shouldn't make a person condemned by society.
Maybe we did land on the moon and maybe we didn't, maybe George Bush was behind 9/11 or maybe he wasn't, but this is all speculation and few people actually know full details about these events besides the individuals who were involved.
I think a better name for this thread would be keep an open mind, or maybe don't believe everything your told simply because of who told it to you.
No I do not think 2 jetliners brought down 3 buildings on 9/11. The Twin Towers were two of the strongest buildings ever created and their collapse time was just seconds off from freefall, for 110 stories each. That means there was virtually no resistance the entire way down. That cannot happen without controlled demolition of the columns. And what about Building 7? There is no question that building was professionally demolished. It's symmetry and speed of collapse combined with its asymmetrical construction over a ConEd substation are more than enough proof to show that it only could have fallen that way with a controlled demolition.
I have posted this a few pages before: It is a lie. They didn't come down with "nearly freefall". And "seconds" are a lot considering the acceleration is 9.81m/s for a building 417 m high. (In real free fall it would just take 6.5 seconds to cross this distance.)
On February 19 2013 23:09 Chilling5pr33 wrote: Why do we even discuss this here?
Because this is exactly what this topic is about. Picking a mainstream common conspiracy theory and showing how dumb it is might just be the best way to indicate what conspiracy theories are all about.
If the OP want to make the case that being a conspiracy theorist makes you smart, he can't just ignore some popular conspiracy theories, he has to deal with them too. I'm not saying that OP believes the moon landing was faked, but if he wants to defend conspiracy theories as a concept, he has to defend that one as well.
I'm not any sort of conspiracy theorist, but flawed logic like this makes me so mad >.>
Being a conspiracy theorist means believing in at least one conspiracy theory. That doesn't mean the theorist in question believes all of them are true or has to defend all of them. He should be willing and able to defend only the ones that he believes are true!
Defending conspiracy theories as a concept does not require every theory to be true unless the person is making the argument that every conspiracy theory is actually true. That's where the flaw in your thinking lies.
Well if you read the OP, he claims that all theorys/explanations have the same probability and he doesn't want to pick one - he is openminded.
On February 20 2013 02:25 Perdac Curall wrote:Yes I do agree with the over 1700 Architects and Engineers who also question the collapses of the 3 towers on 9/11, as well as the numerous family members who still have not received any answers to their stack of questions regarding their loved ones murders.
Just remember that there are like, hundreds of thousands of engineers, scientists, and architects who disagree with those 1700 people
On February 20 2013 02:25 Perdac Curall wrote:Yes I do agree with the over 1700 Architects and Engineers who also question the collapses of the 3 towers on 9/11, as well as the numerous family members who still have not received any answers to their stack of questions regarding their loved ones murders.
Just remember that there are like, hundreds of thousands of engineers, scientists, and architects who disagree with those 1700 people
It always amazes me how people can post something as ridiculous as that. HEY LOOK EVERYBODY there's like <1% of people that agree with me!
On February 20 2013 02:31 MetalxStorm wrote: there are hundreds if not thousands of "conspiracy theories" trying to nail OP down to one is not going to work. I don't agree with everything OP said, but it seems like his point is this- considering more potential options is not necessarily a bad thing and shouldn't make a person condemned by society.
Maybe we did land on the moon and maybe we didn't, maybe George Bush was behind 9/11 or maybe he wasn't, but this is all speculation and few people actually know full details about these events besides the individuals who were involved.
I think a better name for this thread would be keep an open mind, or maybe don't believe everything your told simply because of who told it to you.
You don't have to know all the details to disprove something. All you need to do is imagine what it would imply if the theory was true.
If it was true that we didn't land on the Moon, the Soviets would've known. Radio communication between Houston and Apollo 11 wasn't encrypted or anything, and even amateur radio enthusiasts listened in. If it had been faked, the Soviets would've known and would've loved to blow our cover. Anything to shame the bourgeious capitalists.
If GW, or anyone in the government had been behind 9/11, it would require thousands of people keeping it secret. Considering Bill Clinton couldn't even hide a blowjob, I'm doubting the government could hide murdering 3,000 of its own people. Just because GW used 9/11 to go to war doesn't mean he caused 9/11, it just means he was good at playing the hand he was dealt.
Well, we've hit 9/11 truthers. I guess that makes a thread. But before we go, a closing thought. The twin towers in New York stood proudly for nearly eleven thousand days and yet we're expected to believe that on the morning of the 12th of September 2001 they just weren't there anymore after that many consecutive days of being there? What are the odds that that'd happen? Think about it like this. You don't need to understand exactly how gravity works to know that when you drop something it'll fall towards the strongest gravitational body around it, the body of experience you build up over time is how you know things fall when dropped. If you dropped something eleven thousand times and it fell each time but then I told you that from now on they wouldn't fall anymore then you'd think that was total bullshit, why is the idea that suddenly the twin towers collapsed so readily accepted. I wonder what proportion of conspiracy theorists have actually gone to New York and checked whether they're not still there and totally fine.
EPT
