[ThomPete]

But here is the problem.

Conspiracy theorists are assuming the conclusion before the evidence is in place. You know just like religious people can make anything seem like an act of god. Or believers in Nostradamus make everything seem like he was right. The list of alternatives stories one can make in retrospect is more or less limitless.

If you have already decided that the government are conspiring against their citizens then you will take any weird phenomena and use that as an argument for you case.

But you could might as well make another conclusion far less spectacular yet as horrific. For instance that the US government knew something was going to happen and they let it happen.

This would be a far less outrageous claim to make even though it's really pretty much wrong.

Conspiracies look like those that Wikileaks expose once in a while. They aren't well orchestrated, they aren't masterminded, they are messy, with lot's of potential leak risk and more importantly they are very small in scale.

Yet wikileaks have managed to get a hold of that.

One would think that if there are people who leak videos of US pilots shooting down journalists, there would be people leaking a far greater story, requiring a far larger conspiracy involving thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people.

One would also think that if the government really was that great at covering up something a huge as 9/11 then they wouldn't make stupid mistakes like the ones that the conspiracy theorists seems to attach themselves too.

In fact one would think that if they made such fundamental mistakes as those that seem to be used as a proof for the conspiracy then the likelihood of the conspiracy being leaked would increase by many many factors.

Unpleasant to think about? Yes for the conspiracy theorists.

A reality: Very sadly yes!

[wil2k]

"Conspiracy theorists are assuming the conclusion before the evidence is in place. You know just like religious people can make anything seem like an act of god. Or believers in Nostradamus make everything seem like he was right. The list of alternatives stories one can make in retrospect is more or less limitless."

I completely agree with this.

"If you have already decided that the government are conspiring against their citizens then you will take any weird phenomena and use that as an argument for you case."

I also agree completely with this point. I also want to make it very clear that I have not decided that the government is conspiring against their citizens, nor is it my starting point.

It is however not something that can be ruled out from the start either, as I mentioned, history has proven that too.

"But you could might as well make another conclusion far less spectacular yet as horrific. For instance that the US government knew something was going to happen and they let it happen."

Agreed, there are so many shades of gray between the often official/'truthers' dichotomy that is almost always maintained and promoted.

Once again to be explicit: I'm interested for the correct shade of gray, because the official version doesn't do it for me, but most alternatives are complete non-sense too.

"This would be a far less outrageous claim to make even though it's really pretty much wrong."

At least the government messed up by ignoring too many signals in the months leading up to the day and by acting to slow on the day itself. Having a training with almost the exact same scenario on the same day doesn't help. This also applied to the attack in London. "One would think that if there are people who leak videos of US pilots shooting down journalists, there would be people leaking a far greater story, requiring a far larger conspiracy involving thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people."

Not necessarily. Large groups of people can work on a common goal while still keeping it secret. See e.g. the Manhattan project with 100K people working on it.

"One would also think that if the government really was that great at covering up something a huge as 9/11 then they Unpleasant to think about? Yes for the conspiracy theorists."

As I noted in another reply in this topic: conspiracy theory is also a word that's used to create false dichotomies.

The official version is also a conspiracy, the conspirators being those Arabic hijackers (of whom quite a few are still alive too btw).

So the real issue isn't: is it a conspiracy or not

It's: who are the conspirators and how can everything observed that day be explained.

[ThomPete]

The Manhatten Project wasn't a conspiracy any more than the CIA is a conspiracy. And the Manhatten Project is pretty well documented and would be carried trough with each new president in the know. Plus The Manhatten Project wasn't done against Americans.

If you are comparing those two projects as equals then you are basically insinuating that Obama must know about this project and is keeping it a secret?

Otherwise it's pretty obvious that you are trying to build an argument out of basically nothing.

You are simply proving my point. You are claiming there are conspirators. Unless you are willing to assume the likelihood that there aren't any, that pretty much means end of any meaningful debate from my point of view.

[cakeface]

"The Manhatten Project wasn't a conspiracy any more than the CIA is a conspiracy. And the Manhatten Project is pretty well documented and would be carried trough with each new president in the know. Plus The Manhatten Project wasn't done against Americans."

He was not claiming that the Manhattan Project was a conspiracy, or a conspiracy against Americans. He was only citing it as evidence that a large number of people can work together in secret.

"If you are comparing those two projects as equals then you are basically insinuating that Obama must know about this project and is keeping it a secret?"

Again, not claiming the Manhattan project was a conspiracy. No reason to bring Obama into the argument.

"Otherwise it's pretty obvious that you are trying to build an argument out of basically nothing."

I think that he cited fairly clearly that there is evidence that is not "basically nothing" that he finds suspect. See the links that he posted.

"You are simply proving my point. You are claiming there are conspirators. Unless you are willing to assume the likelihood that there aren't any, that pretty much means end of any meaningful debate from my point of view."

No, he isn't proving your point. What he is stating is that in most explanations, whether the official or the truther's, there are conspirators. In the official version the conspirators are middle eastern terrorists.

[ThomPete]

Only problem is that a large number of people didn't work together in keeping a secret.

Very few knew what it even meant and it was all documented and known by parts of the government. A government in war btw. A secret weapon that was not used against it's own people.

So it's pure brute forcing unrelated events in a attempt to make something completely unrelated look like it's the same.

But I have no doubt that the next time around hitler will be used as part of the argument to show that a leader can blind his people to believe in anything using the news outlets as his propaganda machine.

Only problem is that we don't live in 1948 or 1984 for that matter.

[wil2k]

"Very few knew what it even meant and it was all documented and known by parts of the government. A government in war btw. A secret weapon that was not used against it's own people."

It's not brute forcing. You can place many people in their role and position, letting them do their job honestly without any need for them to have any clue at all about the greater scheme.

(This would probably apply more to the government scenario than to other scenarios, but for sake of the examples..)

Simple examples, more elaborate ones can easily be thought of with a bit more time:

Did the person giving the hijackers pilot training play a role that day? definitely!

Was this person to be blamed? in the know? no! Doing his/her job in good faith and with honesty? yes!

What about those people scheduling an air force training that day, causing many planes and pilots that normally defend the NY airspace to be away from the area? (assuming this was a 'purposeful move in the 'allowed to happen' scheme or something)

They were just following orders. Training pilots regularly is a good thing to do right? Who can predict that the lack of defensive capability that day would be such a bad/tragic timing? The people actually organizing the training? No! Would the pilots moving to a training need to be in the know? No! Can they be blamed? Not at all, but they might regret not being at their home base.

Just a couple of people in strategic places can move all the 'pawns' (not meant derogatory in any way!) to the correct place and time for the greater strategic (chess) plan to work / allowed to work / insert possible variations here.

These 'pawns' would often truly believe that they are doing their job to the best of their abilities and not be able to see any 'evil' in what they are doing.

Hope what I'm trying to convey is somewhat clear.

Once again, these examples are easier to make for the 'government scenario'.. which is not something that I fully support.

To be honest: I really don't know what really happened that day. I don't have a definitive answer that I want to 'push on to others'. I only know that the official story is something with too many holes and too many strange coincidences for me.

[ThomPete]

In other words you assume that those holes must be the evidence of a conspiracy. Why not just be honest about it? I have met so many of your kind with exactly the same arguments. At the end of the day you think there was a conspiracy. But instead of being honest about it you simply hide behind vague insinuations.

You have answered none of my arguments. Basically you think that most people are idiots being fooled by some clever evil leaders through the use of propaganda. Each and every of your posts illuminates that more than anything else.

[wil2k]

Oh and regarding:

"Only problem is that we don't live in 1948 or 1984 for that matter."

You forget one thing: human nature hasn't changed that much.

There are still plenty of modern examples of leaders that are blindly followed by people. E.g. cults, certain countries, etc.

Perhaps the risk of this happening in the West has gone down, but it's still there.

Do not underestimate the power of TV and the like.. and do not forget how fear is an effective method to sweep people into action. Perhaps not invading other countries.. but things like body scanners and privacy invasions are common place now.. why? fear + media outlets = powerful.

Different effects, same underlying principles..