[–] Are_we_sure ago (edited ago)
No. The key element is timing.
For a conspiracy theories to turn out to be true, the theory has to exist and be widely shared before the event/relevation happens. It someone came forward tomorrow with proof that John Podesta was a cannibal pedophile than pizzagate would be a conspiracy theory that was proven true. Pizzagate would have had predictive value.
Iran-Contra was not a conspiracy theory because no one was saying the NSC/CIA was selling missiles to Iran and using the money to fund the Contras in Nicaragua before it was discovered. It was a genuine conspiracy that was discovered.
I still would like to hear what conspiracy theories you think have been proven true.
You're literally saying the same thing, that evidence has to exist for it to be a conspiracy vs no evidence for a conspiracy theory and that's simply not true, nor is that even close to how a conspiracy is defined.
Here's a definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy%20theory
whether or not there is EVIDENCE for said theory can obvious discredit or give credit to the theory itself, but that doesn't stop it from being a conspiracy theory.
You're conflating evidence with proof. There can be evidence of a conspiracy, but the conspiracy theory could still be false. A theory is a theory, in the scientific world it's a framework created using various observations. A fact is a theory proven to be true, so to call something a "conspiracy" would be inherently inferring that we know for a fact that this event happened, which would take it from theory to fact.
As far as theories that have been proven to be true, off the top of my head I would immediately think of: operation northwoods, operation mockingbird, COINTELPRO, MKUltra, mass government surveillance.
Just recently wikileaks released some data confirming that the CIA can remotely control planes, cars, etc...something that there was zero evidence for (aside from it being possible in theory)
conspiracy theories run a gamut from off-the-wall with no evidence, to no evidence but grounded in reality and/or likely, to much evidence and very likely, etc. I feel like you're just arbitrarily setting boundaries so it's mentally easier for you to lump all the bad ones into "conspiracy theory" and then writing them all off in the process.
[–] DarkMath ago (edited ago)
"and most have little to no evidence supporting those theories."
ROFLMAO. AreWeSure stop talking shit. There's a fuck ton of evidence 9/11 was an inside job.You refuse to acknowledge any of it.
@chris AreWeSure is a paid shill. He's what they call a "concern troll". Google it.
You can easily prove this yourself. All you have to do is ask AreWeSure the right type of question. For example regarding 9/11 ask him these types of questions:
Is there ANY evidence that 9/11 was an inside job?
Is there ANY evidence that building 7 was a controlled demolition? (It was.)
Another way is ask him about Clinton Cash.
Is there ANY evidence Hillary broke the law with respect to the Clinton Foundation?
Is there ANY evidence that the Foundation's CEO, Eric Braverman, quit because he detected charity fraud? (He did.
Etc etc.......ad infinitum
An objective person with no shill bias would acknowledge at least something. Just in that WTC demolition post where I list the top 10 pieces of evidence surely you could acknowledge at least ONE is legitimate. The Larry Silverstein evidence is unassailable.
What you'll find though is AreWeSure won't acknowledge ANY evidence as legitimate. It's pure insanity. No one is ever 100% sure of 100% of everything.........except the AreWeSure brothers. They are 100% sure no one working for Clinton & Co committed any crime ever in the history of the universe. Ditto for 9/11.
Doubt me? Go ahead try asking him yourself.
:-D
@AreWeSure @are_we__sure @RweSure
[–] Are_we_sure ago
There's absolutely zero evidence that any building that collapsed on 9/11 was a controlled demolition. And more than three buildings were destroyed. WTC 4 mostly collapsed. WTC 5 and 6 had localized collapses. Why did this buildings collapse? Because towers 1 and 2 did not "collapse" into their own foot print, they peeled out and fell on other buildings. Most of the collapses were due the impact of the falling towers, but they also had fire induced collapses, particularly in WTC 5. http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/fig-4-20.jpg http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/fig-4-17.jpg
Why did 5 not fully collapse like the others? It was built differently.
Had an actually controlled demolition occurred, there would be plenty of evidence in the debris which was examined by structurally engineers and removed by demolition companies very familiar with controlled demolitions. Explosives would leave distinctive damage and other items like the detonators and wiring required for all the columns to go off at once would have been left over. It would have thousands of yards of this wiring. Thermite would also leave quite clear evidence as it spits out molten iron that would have been all over the columns was the reaction was done.
They would have left quite clear evidence at the time of collapse as well. The type of linear shape charges needed to cut through the thick steel of the trade center would be enormously loud. It's the speed of this pressure wave that helps cut the steel. The pressure wave would create a boom heard for miles. You can reduce this pressure wave to where it would not be heard on any of the dozens of videos of the collapse AND cut steel. You can't have the collapse without the giant Sharp boom. Thermite was once used to cut a tower at the Chicago worlds fair. They needed 1000 pounds to cut two columns and it was visible for two miles. The UV rays creaed when thermite burns cannot be viewed up close without a welders mask. It would have lit up like the sun if thermite was involved.
The conspiracists came up with a the idea of a demolition before understanding any of the science of it. They didn't talk about thermite for years. They said it was convention explosives, it was only when this was completely shut down for the reasons I just gave did they turn elsewhere. First to thermate, then to thermite and these got shot down as well, then to nanothermite a substance they imbue with mythical powers. They claim it's both an explosive that can throw steel columns hundreds of feet and a completely silent way to melt the columns. Thermite releases no gases in its reaction, so it creates no pressure wave and it not an explosive, by the way. Thermite also releases all of its energy super quickly. Nanothermite even more quickly due to the small size of the particles, yet they claim that thermite was still heating fires in the pile for weeks afterwards. It's the Tinkerbell of chemical substances. Close your eyes and believe real hard and it doesn't anything.
Thermite actually is not very energy dense. (It's a heavy mix of metals by the way). Things like paper, wood, wax, gasoline, all have way more energy per gram. Thermite goes off and then stops. It doesn't heat things for a very long time.
[–] DarkMath ago (edited ago)
"There's absolutely zero evidence"
I stopped after the word "evidence" because you didn't mention Larry Silverstein's "pull" comment and also a speech where he referred to the plans for a new WTC 7 building a full year before 9/11.
O_O
@chris this is exactly what AreWeSure does. He'll just flat out ignore evidence doesn't suit his version of events. I then provide a short refresher on the scientific method:
Bad: Conclusion -> Observation
Good: Observation -> Conclusion
To no avail I might add. That has lead me to the conclusion AreWeSure is either a shill or the most naive person on planet Earth.
:-D