You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
0

[–] Are_we_sure ago 

I think it's not rational to dismiss all conspiracy theories, especially now as quite a few have been outed in recent times, but there is definitely a fringe of conspiracy theories that are not based in facts at all.

Name a few that have. Conspiracies certainly exist and are uncovered, but conspiracy theories specifically refer to commonly held beliefs that a conspiracy took place for which there is no evidence. The US mob worked with the Sicilian mafia to sell heroin out certain pizzerias was a conspiracy. And it wasn't predicted before hand. Comet Ping Pong is one of a series of Satanic pizzerias dealing in child-sex-trafficking and cannibalism throughout the US, including Brooklyn, Portland, San Francisco, Philadelphia and Ausian is a conspiracy theory.

That is conspiracy theories are supposed to be predictive. They are supposed to predict something that is not yet known. Conspiracy theories often popup AFTER an event to explain why something big happened. 9/11 conspiracies didn't take off when we invaded Afghanistan. They took off years later after we invaded Iraq when the politics made it seem more plausible. Though if 9/11 was an inside job done to justify the invasion of Iraq, why not make it look like Iraqis did it in the first place?

No Conspiracy theory has ever been proven correct.

No conspiracy theory has ever been proven true.

A less-elegant and wordier way to say this is that there has never been a popularly held conspiracy theory, ie, a non-evidenced belief that a group of powerful people secretly worked together to do something harmful, that later had compelling evidence to prove that said conspiracy was real.

Whenever I use this argument in social media, I’m invariably sent one of about half a dozen different internet listicles that attempt to prove me wrong by going through a number of conspiracies or conspiracy theories that were later proven to be real. One is a really long slog from Infowars. Another is from Cracked. There are still others from Listverse, Style Slides and True Activist.

What much of the content on these lists, as well as those who send them to me, get wrong on a pretty consistent basis is that there is a difference between a conspiracy and a conspiracy theory. Conspiracies are real, and many of them have been proven conclusively to have taken place at all times throughout history. Some of these include the conspiracy to assassinate Abraham Lincoln, the conspiracy to assassinate Adolf Hitler (the so-called July 20th plot), the conspiracy to throw the 1919 World Series, American tobacco companies conspiring to suppress scientific research that painted their products as harmful, and so on. All of these are real and none of them are theories.

Likewise, things like 9/11 being an inside job, JFK being shot by multiple gunmen, chemtrails, the existence of an all-powerful New World Order, FEMA camps and any number of banking and currency related plots are all conspiracy theories. That is to say, they are all theories that a conspiracy took place – and most have little to no evidence supporting those theories.

0
0

[–] chris [S] ago 

You're just changing the meaning of conspiracy theory to suit your needs by removing theories with evidence, that makes no sense and that's not what the definition is. Of course conspiracy theories with no evidence usually don't turn out to be correct lol

0
0

[–] 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.

0
0

[–] 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

0
0

[–] 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.