For some reason it is silly and strange to think that people in power might engage in an antipatriotic act on a large scale, despite the history of what rich and powerful humans have done before in other countries and in the US.
Even recent history shows an administration making up excuses to make war with Iraq. The neocon supporters of this war called for this war a few years before. The American public was lied to. This was, in fact, a conspiracy. This led to more deaths of service personnel than those who died in 9/11. This led to enormous transfers of public funding to private corporations, many of them who won no bid contracts and had ties - and not subtle ones - to the administration. (and this is nothing compared to the war crimes of say Kissinger and Nixon, also in a conspiracy - illegal bombing in Cambodia and Laos for example, and of course what they knew was happening even in Vietnam.)
We know the powerful even in what gets called a democracy can and will do these things.
This is all out in the public record. But note your reactions to the suggestion that it could remotely be possible that it would ever be done on domestic soil. Impossible. Even though if one goes back in time, we can find the very people themselves admitting what they did. Take the industrialists and how they involved the US in WW1. In the past, sure conspiracies. Now, never. To me the anomaly would be if powerful people stopped doing these kinds of things, but somehow the idea that they would is weird and the people who believe these things or are skeptical of official accounts are loonies.
I am sure some of you will say...oh, I looked at the evidence and then I was skeptical. I am afraid I am skeptical of that sequence.
Then there is the issue of them being called conspiracy theories or in this forum simply conspiracies. As if believing in conspiracies was strange, when of course we know there are conspiracies and history is riddled with them. Nevertheless the irrationally used term 'conspiracy theory' gets used over and over by the people who think they must be on the rational side of the argument. If you think, for example, 9/11 was not a conspiracy, then you must think it was coincidental pilot error. Nevertheless the idiotic terms conspiracy theorist/ theory - or the even broader term 'conspiracy' itself - will be used despite the lunacy of this usage.
The opening of the forum elicited preemptive mockery.
How could anyone doubt official versions.
James's explanation of the forum included the idea that these theories entail scientists (as a whole one might think from his wording) be misleading people. As if scientists were immune from conformism and also not wanting to deal with what it would mean if such things were true. And of course most importantly that there are many scientists who are skeptical of the official explanations and on scientific grounds.
I won't participate more in this forum. Why? Because I will be tempted to go to competent experts who are skeptics of official explanations and come back with their arguments. And I will be meeting arguments from people doing much the same thing and perhaps some specific experts here. I don't have the time for this kind of research and it is being done better on other locations on the web.
But I did want to point out that I think there are some seriously closed minds reacting to people skeptical of official versions that, of course, have the primary onus of proof. And these issues bring up irrational thinking on all sides.
Even recent history shows an administration making up excuses to make war with Iraq. The neocon supporters of this war called for this war a few years before. The American public was lied to. This was, in fact, a conspiracy. This led to more deaths of service personnel than those who died in 9/11. This led to enormous transfers of public funding to private corporations, many of them who won no bid contracts and had ties - and not subtle ones - to the administration. (and this is nothing compared to the war crimes of say Kissinger and Nixon, also in a conspiracy - illegal bombing in Cambodia and Laos for example, and of course what they knew was happening even in Vietnam.)
We know the powerful even in what gets called a democracy can and will do these things.
This is all out in the public record. But note your reactions to the suggestion that it could remotely be possible that it would ever be done on domestic soil. Impossible. Even though if one goes back in time, we can find the very people themselves admitting what they did. Take the industrialists and how they involved the US in WW1. In the past, sure conspiracies. Now, never. To me the anomaly would be if powerful people stopped doing these kinds of things, but somehow the idea that they would is weird and the people who believe these things or are skeptical of official accounts are loonies.
I am sure some of you will say...oh, I looked at the evidence and then I was skeptical. I am afraid I am skeptical of that sequence.
Then there is the issue of them being called conspiracy theories or in this forum simply conspiracies. As if believing in conspiracies was strange, when of course we know there are conspiracies and history is riddled with them. Nevertheless the irrationally used term 'conspiracy theory' gets used over and over by the people who think they must be on the rational side of the argument. If you think, for example, 9/11 was not a conspiracy, then you must think it was coincidental pilot error. Nevertheless the idiotic terms conspiracy theorist/ theory - or the even broader term 'conspiracy' itself - will be used despite the lunacy of this usage.
The opening of the forum elicited preemptive mockery.
How could anyone doubt official versions.
James's explanation of the forum included the idea that these theories entail scientists (as a whole one might think from his wording) be misleading people. As if scientists were immune from conformism and also not wanting to deal with what it would mean if such things were true. And of course most importantly that there are many scientists who are skeptical of the official explanations and on scientific grounds.
I won't participate more in this forum. Why? Because I will be tempted to go to competent experts who are skeptics of official explanations and come back with their arguments. And I will be meeting arguments from people doing much the same thing and perhaps some specific experts here. I don't have the time for this kind of research and it is being done better on other locations on the web.
But I did want to point out that I think there are some seriously closed minds reacting to people skeptical of official versions that, of course, have the primary onus of proof. And these issues bring up irrational thinking on all sides.
