Psychology of Conspiracy Theorists

Discussion in 'Conspiracies' started by James R, Feb 18, 2015.

  1. someguy1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    357
    I just saw this thread and clearly it's been going on a long time. I haven't read through it. I'm just wondering what the "anti" conspiracy folks say about Julius Caesar and Abe Lincoln. Do they think that Caesar was killed by a lone knifeman? Are they aware the US federal government brought conspiracy charges against many people and hanged several of them?

    Let me toss out a couple of other datapoints. In 1964 when Lyndon Johnson said that a US navy ship was attacked by North Vietnam in the Gulf of Tonkin, if an informed citizen said "Bullshit," would they have been called a conspiracy theorist? Yet we know now that the Gulf of Tonkin incident never happened. It was bullshit. A lie for the purpose of drawing the country in to a larger and totally disastrous war.

    Likewise Saddam's WMD's. In fact the US government has lied the country into war many times. So if a person instinctively disbelieves anything the government says, are they a tinfoil hat loony? Or simply a well-informed skeptic with a sharp bullshit detector?

    As I mentioned I'm sorry I couldn't have tossed out these questions much earlier in this thread. To me it's people who simply believe everything the government says, without running it through their own common sense, that are the ones who need to be questioned. The government lies to us constantly. Aren't we legitimately entitled to be skeptical, simply by the weight of history?
     
    river likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,427
    Conspiracies certainly do exist and have existed. But as you mention common sense, please tell me how literally thousands of people, the Russians in the cold war, could ever hoped to be fooled re the Moon landings. To believe that is a conspiracy is certainly to open one's self to be called a loonie.
    Please tell me how anyone in their right mine could accept that 9/11 was a conspiracy, when again, thousands of people occupied the two towers and needed to be silenced, plus the passengers on the planes, the planting of the thermite in the buildings somehow, etc etc etc Again to believe that is to be open to being a certified loonie.

    No, conspiracy pushers are evil, warped minded individuals, that like trolls on science forums, get there rocks off by spreading disinformation, claiming other nonsensical facts, and then relying on the impressionables, the gullibles, and those that are attracted to woo and spooky stuff to lap it up without giving it a single common sense thought.

    The crux of it all though is that history will see the truth prevail, while the mystical conspiracy nonsense will die away to be forever forgotten.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. someguy1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    357
    19 > 1. You remember, "19 Arab hijackers because they hate our freedoms." Nineteen is more than one. The government's own story on 9/11 is a conspiracy theory.

    With JFK at least there is a lone gunman theory. One can believe in a lone gunman or one can believe in conspiracy. [The majority of US citizens and the US Congress believe it was a conspiracy].

    But with 9/11, you have no choice unless you think that Dick Cheney personally flew all the planes. Every conceivable theory of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory.

    Care to rephrase your question? Are you defending the government's conspiracy theory? Then say that. We can discuss it. Even the commission's co-chairs Keane and Hamilton stated publicly that the commission was set up to fail. But maybe you believe their underfunded and implausible account. That's your right. But it's a conspiracy theory.

    Every possible explanation or theory or idea about 9/11 must necessarily be a conspiracy theory, because many people must have been involved.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,427
    Unmitigated nonsense, but hey! knock your brains out!
     
  8. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,942
    I'm a bit hazy on your point. Can you clarify 'people'?

    Do you mean many people (terrorists), or do you mean many people (Americans)? Or possibly both?

    The latter two would involve a conspiracy, the first does not.
     
  9. someguy1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    357
    I'm a bit hazy on your haziness. A conspiracy is a plot involving more than one person to do something. If the government says there were 19 hijackers, that's a conspiracy.

    How would 19 people conspiring to do something not be a conspiracy?

    Here is the legal definition of a conspiracy.

    A criminal conspiracy exists when two or more people agree to commit almost any unlawful act ...

    http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/conspiracy.html

    This is a key point, because the phrase "conspiracy theory" is designed to make people turn off their critical thinking facilities. If the very co-chairs of the government's 9/11 commission stated (as they did) that the commission was set up to fail, does that make them tinfoil hatters?
     
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,427
    The conspiracy as you well know is the "making up", and creating alternative suggestions, based on isolated primitive so called evidence, as opposed to the overall bulk of empirical evidence and the plot as generally accepted. eg: nineteen terrorists in three planes after 2 or 3 years planning, crashed into the two world towers and the Pentagon, because of the general intent and goal of Al Qaeda. Anything else is a dumb, silly unsupported conspiracy and totally against available evidence.
     
  11. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,942
    Generalized definition aside, it is usually understood that acts of war by known enemies are not normally called conspiracies. A 9/11 conspiracy is generally understood by all to mean conspiracy among those whom we normally trust - i.e. our own people.

    While I get the pedantry, why don't we move ahead with you implicitly applying that definition. It will remove a lot of semantic equivocation.
     
  12. someguy1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    357
    But it was only declared an act of war after the fact. Every prior act of terrorism in the US had been investigated as a crime. 9/11 was declared an act of war and not a crime by the Bush administration. Even if one accepts the most mainstream core of the 9/11 attacks -- which you outlined with perfect clarity -- one can still note that the government's reaction to it was driven by an agenda. The Neocon document Project for a New American Century had called for a "new Pearl Harbor" to motivate the American people to support a total transformation of the Middle East. That would be accomplished via a series of wars against seven countries within five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan & Iran. This plan was made several years before 9/11. Many of the key PNAC authors obtained jobs in the Bush administration. We are at war today in every one of those countries and the government can't wait to attack Iran.

    Moreover, by not treating 9/11 as a crime, no criminal investigation was done. The debris from the twin towers was hauled off and sold to China for scrap within weeks of 9/11. No forensic examination was allowed or ever took place. Even at the time many New Yorkers howled in anger, from people on the street to newpaper columnists and politicans. Never mind. The deal was done.

    Now for the record I do note that this does not in itself make 9/11 a conspiracy beyond the so-called 19 perpetrators. The Neocons just got lucky. If you believe that I'll stipulate it for sake of discussion. But when you look at the endless wars we're in, the trillions of dollars wasted, the utter failure of the Neocon project, the consequences of which we probably haven't even seen yet. In other words the ME is going to get a lot worse because of the PNAC theory and the Bush administration execution of that awful plan.

    Now if you're Columbo, you look at cui bono, who benefits.

    But if you just declare a crime to be an act of war, Columbo doesn't show up. The evidence is sealed off and shipped to China. Nobody follows the money. The Narrative is decided on first and all evidence not supporting the Narrative is ignored.

    This is what happened with the 9/11 commission.

    Now I can hold two things: (1) 9/11 happened exactly as the commission says it did; and (2) the commission still did a really shoddy job and their work does not meet the standard of what I would call rational inquiry.

    But once you see the ugly truth about (2), you start to question (1). And that's where I'm at.

    No I utterly reject your claim that because the Bush administration decided that this was their new Pearl Harbor so they could put into place their maniac wars; that they deliberately called 9/11 an act of war, instead of what it was: a crime. A crime with perpetrators, planners, financiers, enablers, suppliers, and all the rest of the vast -- CONSPIRACY -- that must have supported the operations.

    But instead of looking for ANY of that, the government sent the country off to war and UTTERLY FAILED to do a criminal investigation.

    9/11 was obviously a conspiracy. Of the 19, yes. And of everyone else who enabled and supported it. It was also a crime, but never investigated as such.

    That you think it's so obviously a war means that the government's brainwashing has been very effective.

    If you can step back from that ... see 9/11 at the moment it happened, neither a crime nor a war until someone labelled it as such -- someone with a big time agenda -- you'd see that your own opinion is not really yours. You heard a lie over and over and over till it became the truth. It was Pearl Harbor. An attack on America.

    The Pearl Harbor narrative had been decided on several years before. And the wars, every war the Neocons wanted. .

    9/11 was a crime. An and a conspiracy. It was the coordinated action of hundreds of people scattered all over the world, some in the US surely, many in Saudi Arabia as the government finally was forced to admit just in 2016.

    So no, I reject your characterization. I've laid out the conspiracy. 19 plus elements of the government of Saudi Arabia and enablers and financiers unknown. That's your conspiracy.
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2017
  13. someguy1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    357
    ps -- That got a little ranty but I'll leave it up in case anyone's not aware of some of the details I laid out, like the PNAC plan and the shoddy official report.

    The tl;dr is:

    * The official 9/11 commission report is a very shoddy piece of work that does not meet the definition of rational inquiry. Any reasonable person who learned about the details would at the very least want a proper investigation done.

    * It wasn't an act of war till the Bush admin labelled it as such in order to implement a plan they'd hatched years earlier to get the American people on board to start seven wars in the Middle East. No other terrorist act had ever been called an act of war. And by calling it an act of war, no criminal investigation was ever done. How convenient. Nothing to disturb the Narrative, which had already been pre-determined.

    * It was of course a conspiracy, look at all the people it took to pull off.

    But answer me this. If 9/11 was an act of war; and the government has always known (and as of 2016 the American people know) that elements of the government of Saudi Arabia were up to their eyeballs in the planning and financing of 9/11; then why aren't we at war with Saudi Arabia?

    Answer: 9/11 wasn't an act of war. It was a criminal conspiracy; and one that has never been properly investigated.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_28_Pages

    I would think that finding out the truth would be of interest to people. But no, then you'll get called a "truther." You see how public shaming is used as a method of thought control. Mustn't be one of those crazy people interested in the truth ... Too dangerous. Better just call people conspiracy nuts, that will keep me safe.

    You see, that literally is the PSYCHOLOGY of conspiracy theories, coming back to the actual purpose of the thread. I'm not here to argue 9/11. I'm here to point out why you think a "conspiracy theory" is a terrible thing. Anyone who questions the official story is labelled a "conspiracy nut." And nobody wants to be shunned by society. So they stop thinking for themselves. That is the psychology. The very phrase "conspiracy theory" is a psy-op invented by the CIA in the 1960's to suppress the growing chorus of people starting to question the Warren commission report. That's important to note. What I just said is documented. Your idea that a "conspiracy theory" is something that only a nutball tinfoil hat type believes in? That thought was put in your head deliberately by the CIA.
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2017
  14. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,942
    OK, so there is an explanation of 9/11 that doesn't require it being a conspiracy.
    The official one, where 9/11 was carried out by terrorists, and the American government was not involved in any cover up or other activity.
     
  15. someguy1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    357
    I enjoyed writing my posts since I was able to organize a few things floating around my brain. But I see that in terms of communication it was futile. I fail to see how there is any explanation of 9/11 that is not a conspiracy unless you think Dick Cheney personally flew all the planes.


    How is 19 hijackers plus their probably hundreds of enablers and financiers not a conspiracy? I really don't follow you.

    When there's a terrorist attack like the recent one in NYC the authorities want to know if he was a "lone wolf" or if he had one or more accomplices -- that is, whether it was a conspiracy. It's the question of one versus more-than-one. The more-than-one label applies to 9/11. I can't grasp your reasoning.
     
  16. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,942

    Again: A 9/11 conspiracy is generally understood by all to mean conspiracy among those whom we normally trust - i.e. our own people. (If you are arguing 2 or more people involved === conspiracy, then that is trivially true, and not worth the screen real estate).

    And, since the involvement of friendlies in 9/11 is not granted as fact, unless you can
    a] cite a confession or guilty charge, or
    b] demonstrate that it is part of the official explanation,
    it remains speculative.

    I'm not asserting this as my actual stance, I'm simply saying that a non-conspiratorial (see above working definition) explanation remains on the table.
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2017
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,427
    Any war is an act of crime.
    Sheesh! After 3000 people are slaughtered by a bunch of loony crazies, you then claim the victim as having an agenda?
    You said it!!! Which in my mind anyway, tells me it is you with the agenda, obviously being a political agenda.
     
  18. FatFreddy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    384
  19. Gawdzilla Sama Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    554
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,427
  21. FatFreddy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    384
  22. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,755
    Dude, he's playing word games, hoping to drag you in..
     
  23. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,942
    Yeah. He's not succeeding.
    He makes a hasty jump from 'lots of conjecture' to 'conclusive'.
    I don't really care to argue the conjectures, I'm simply affirming that the official explanation is not refuted by any of it.
     

Share This Page