I'm aware that the promoters of this forum grown upon it; but, the manner in which people respond to "beliefs that they do not share" or otherwise pejoratively called "conspiracy theories" leaves much to be desired. — Posty McPostface

Reasonable, and reasoning people--like yourself--react to conspiracy theories negatively because there is a "reality-challenging" pattern to the theories. Bad things happen that aren't readily explainable, and certain kinds of people find the ambiguity of the inexplicable very uncomfortable. To relieve the ambiguity they come up with theories that fit.

In November of 1964 Kennedy was fatally shot in Dallas. A man, Lee Howard Oswald, was apprehended the same day. A day or two later, another man, Jack Ruby, walked up to Oswald while he was being moved and shot Oswald to death on live television.

There were two official theories investigated -- the lone shooter and two shooters--Oswald and a second shooter. It had been quite a long time since a president had been assassinated, and people were shocked and appalled that such a thing could happen, and the investigation was long and exhaustive.

The assassination conspiracy theories were not a new phenomena, of course, but given the enormity of the event, they were given extraordinary play. The usual pattern applied.

#1 a priori assumption: the government is lying. #2 a priori assumption: the government actually did it.

This just could not be the act of a loner. This was a big operation. Actually, the CIA/FBI were behind the assassination, for their own devious purposes. Oh, no: This is clearly a mafia operation, in payment for disrupting the gambling operations in Havana. Baloney, others said, this was definitely a Cuban-Soviet plot. And so on.

And always, the government is not telling the truth -- even though several exhaustive investigations took place. Yes, but they were led by the government, so what do you expect? It's all a coverup.

I'm quite sure, somewhere, some old farts are still nattering away about how the government covered up the REAL STORY of the JFK assassination.

Just 10 years later, give or take, there was an actual conspiracy--the various activities of the Nixon Administration to spy on, and screw around with the Democratic Party's election effort. The Committee to Reelect the President (later abbreviated as "CREEP") did various dirty tricks and, of course, broke into the Democratic National Party offices in the Watergate hotel complex.

When the conspiracy finally came to light, and was gradually dissected in long, broadcast pubic hearings, Americans got a clear picture of how conspiracies actually work. It was all much more straight forward than the typical conspiracy theory.

With your permission I will proceed to just asking how you think that building fell? — Posty McPostface

As I mentioned, there was a documentary that was broadcast a long time ago - I can't recall when, it might have been ten years ago. The temperatures triggered by massive amounts of jet fuel in adjacent buildings caused a fire sufficiently intense to melt the steel.

The notion that the US government, the State Department, large sections of the world's media, and others, conspired together and meanwhile frame Islamic terrorists for it has no credibility. That's all I'm saying on it.

The thing about 9/11 is that the thing is so overt and out in the open that there's a lot of information to examine based on the event. No single person was killed, the motive unclear, and the criminal killed immediately or such matters. Here's the thing, there's actual science to be examined on the event based on the reports made by the agencies tasked with undertaking the investigation. In the case of 9/11 there's a lot of unanswered questions in regards to how a modern steel framed building could have collapsed symmetrically and at free fall speed, with all the steel columns supporting the building turning into cheese. The official account of how the building fell, due to office fires can in no way accommodate how or in the manner in which the building fell, which is claimed to be due to office fires.

Youtube "C-Span, Richard Gage" if your interested in a serious account from a scientific perspective as to how the building actually would have had to be altered, or put more simply, destroyed due to controlled demolition to account for the manner in which the building appears to have fallen.

As I mentioned, there was a documentary that was broadcast a long time ago - I can't recall when, it might have been ten years ago. The temperatures triggered by massive amounts of jet fuel in adjacent buildings caused a fire sufficiently intense to melt the steel. — Wayfarer

I ask you to spend 30 or so minutes and see an interview of an architect now representing almost 3,000 professional architects and engineers on C-Span that aired fairly recently. He does a searing analysis on the matter, and there's isn't much to if, and or but in the matter.

It's in the post above. I won't provide links as to not make the administrators too angry.

I think Richard Gage is a conspiracy theorist and I have not the least interest in anything he has to say.

Any major event will attract a fringe group which seeks to profit financially or advance an agenda by creating a conspiracy. One current example is the speaking tour of Mr Richard Gage who is the founder of “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.” His current tour is taking him to Canada, where he will address audiences at the University of Toronto, Carleton University and the University of Quebec in Montreal. Mr Gage believes that it was “explosives” that brought down the World Trade Center buildings on 9/11 and not the 400,000 pound airliners travelling at several hundred miles per hour.

Mr Gage would have us believe that a mysterious conspiracy was behind the 9/11 attacks and that it was secret operatives who planted the “explosives.” As with any other conspiracy theory that involves accusations that the “government” or the CIA (or whoever) actually carried out the attack, it is necessary to run down the following checklist of observations. If you can get past all of these tests, then maybe there really was a conspiracy at work. If not, it is simply that, a conspiracy theory dreamt up by fringe individuals.

1. A good conspiracy theory suggests that the government is competent enough to map out the strategy, plan the mission, subvert the individuals required to run the plot and then carry it out without getting caught. For anyone who has ever worked for government, it is known that the level of competency required to create such a conspiracy is beyond that of virtually any government – democratic or otherwise.

2. A conspiracy theory assumes that the government pays its employees enough to remain silent. Given the untold millions that could be made by a single book deal revealing the conspiracy and the relatively low rates of pay in government, this is obviously a ludicrous suggestion.

3. The 9/11 conspiracy theory assumes that the rank and file worker in government who helped carry out the conspiracy would tolerate and assist in the mass murder of their fellow citizens. This might be a fair criticism of senior political leaders in some states, but it is a slanderous accusation for the vast majority of government workers in democratic states.

In addition to these general guidelines, it is useful to keep the principle of Occam’s razor in mind when doing analysis on major events: the simplest solution is usually the correct one. If a large airplane full of jet fuel crashes into an extraordinarily tall building at a high rate of speed, then it was probably the airplane that caused the building to fall, not a cabal of unseen secretive government operatives who committed a mass murder against their own citizens. — Tom Quiggen

At that is definitely, absolutely the last post I will enter about this issue.

For anyone who has ever worked for government, it is known that the level of competency required to create such a conspiracy is beyond that of virtually any government – democratic or otherwise. — Tom Quiggen

Oh, right, the Post Office did it! I think it's clear that the military could only undertake such an operation, which the traces of nano-thermite found all around the Twin Towers and building 7, which isn't a walk in the park to make, and is rather made in high-tech defence contractor laboratories.

3. The 9/11 conspiracy theory assumes that the rank and file worker in government who helped carry out the conspiracy would tolerate and assist in the mass murder of their fellow citizens. This might be a fair criticism of senior political leaders in some states, but it is a slanderous accusation for the vast majority of government workers in democratic states. — Tom Quiggen

So, when Noam Chomsky says that there's something called manufactured consent going on daily in the mass media, does that make him a conspiracy theorist?

In addition to these general guidelines, it is useful to keep the principle of Occam’s razor in mind when doing analysis on major events: the simplest solution is usually the correct one. If a large airplane full of jet fuel crashes into an extraordinarily tall building at a high rate of speed, then it was probably the airplane that caused the building to fall, not a cabal of unseen secretive government operatives who committed a mass murder against their own citizens. — Tom Quiggen

Thing is, that this isn't the first instance of a false flag attack to ever happen in history. Governments have shown time and time again that their intentions don't always align with the interest of the public. So, yeah you can tend to wish in hodge podge beliefs that the government is full of incompetent idiots, or very moral and astute citizens that always want the public good. If so, then you might have a great moral compass; but, are not entirely aware of the harm and atrocities that can happen when power is vested in the wrong group of individuals.

[Delete] @Baden

It's obviously not irrational to think even democratic governments are capable of reprehensible actions, including against their own citizens (e.g. COINTELPRO). It is irrational though to think they act against or take massive risks concerning their own interests for relatively minor payoffs. The damage to the UK government and specifically the Tory Party, both collectively and individually, nationally and internationally, if found to be involved in murdering someone on its own soil using a banned nerve agent would be huge and lasting. And the idea that May would not only want to want to take the risk of destroying her own party and position and doing enormous damage to Britain's reputation globally, but also of personally spending the rest of her life in prison, just so she could discredit Russia at a time when she's not even facing a leadership challenge and has three years to prepare to recover her standing for the next election (not to mention when Russia is constantly discrediting itself without her help) is barely worth commenting on. Even in the most desperate of plausible circumstances, the likelihood of the UK government getting involved in something this risky is close to zero.

Russia, on the other hand, and Putin in particular, have a known history of imprisoning and killing opponents at home and abroad, and have suffered little in the way of consequences for it. Putin is already considered to be a brutal dictator in the West and has almost absolute control of the media at home. Plus, without democratic checks and balances, the likelihood of finding proof he was personally involved is far lower. The relative payoff-to-risk ration for him then is considerably higher than that for May (although not so high that it couldn't backfire).

So, I don't think this is about whether we have an open mind* or not, it's more about basic political analysis. Even presuming all governments, democratic or otherwise, are capable of extremely immoral acts (which I personally don't think is an unfair presumption even if it is very unlikely to apply to all individuals in those governments), most governments, particularly those in advanced democracies, must also be presumed to have enough collective intelligence to avoid not only metaphorically shooting themselves in the foot, but in cases like this, sitting on live grenades. And again, I emphasize the collective element; while Putin can essentially do what he wants with little consultation and likely has direct lines to the kinds of people or groups who could organize this crime, May, in order to carry it out, would have to go through processes at multiple levels of government involving very intelligent political players. The idea that they would all suffer the kind of simultaneous, calamitous lapse in judgment required to allow the operation to progress, and then suddenly recover the almost superhuman abilities necessary to cover it all up just isn't credible.

Pretty much the same principles apply to 9/11. Trump can't even manage to hush up a minor affair with a porn actress; Clinton, though apparently much smarter, got caught fiddling with an intern; Reagan, Iran-contra etc. Of course, all of these were orders of magnitude less damaging than being caught organizing 9/11 would have been, which explains why the risk was taken in those cases. So, bad judgment and venality, often in concert, isn't rare in government, but there are limits. Conspiracy theories continue to thrive though on the basic principle that governments are nasty and bad, while failing to adequately take account of the collective and individual consequences of the context in which politics is cultivated, i.e. power and self-interest. Once those pieces are added to the puzzle, the resulting picture, though often more boring, at least makes sense.

*(A Richard Dawkins' quote comes to mind— I paraphrase—it's good to have an open mind as long as it's not so open your brain falls out).

[Delete] @Baden

As opposed to some people who see the word "conspiracy" and go straight into saying that whoever wrote it is an ignorant idiot who wears a tin foil hat, has a computer chip in their brain and has insurance against alien abduction.

As I have already said, I think the latter is against the guidelines of the forum which states that evangelicalism is not tolerated. — René Descartes

That would be more flaming than evangelism. Anyhow, not all conspiracy theories are equal, right? Some deserve pretty harsh treatment and instant dismissal and some merit argument.

[Delete] @Baden

I agree up to a point, and I'd rather see posters erring on the side of charity towards each other if there is a debate to be had, but there is always a line, and someone like Alex Jones is an entertainer who deliberately concocts conspiracies to make money. It's his business. Given that, no serious-minded person should pay attention to him except as a source of amusement.

(Y) good analysis.

Russia, on the other hand, and Putin in particular, have a known history of imprisoning and killing opponents at home and abroad, and have suffered little in the way of consequences for it. — Baden

They probably figure that whatever consequences they are going to suffer this time have already been payed forward. Their reputation outside Russia couldn't get any worse than it already is, so nothing to lose on that count. And domestically this sort of thing is a sure win - both the assassination itself and the reaction abroad (it plays on the siege mentality).

Lip-syncers all. Sad. — Bitter Crank

Spoken like a true Trumper. It's so sad, really sad. In fact that is the mosted sadness of all.

[Delete] @Baden

someone like Alex Jones is an entertainer who deliberately concocts conspiracies to make money. It's his business. Given that, no serious-minded person should pay attention to him except as a source of amusement. — Baden

Fact is that people believe Alex and they think they are intelligently critical when they believe Alex Jones.

Besides, it's telling how Jones once jumped on the Trump train became the most purebred propagandist for Trump in the style of Goebbels and/or old-style Stalinist propaganda. Yep, as if these guys would want people to use their minds and be critical...

it's telling how Jones once jumped on the Trump train became the most purebred propagandist for Trump in the style of Goebbels and/or old-style Stalinist propaganda. — ssu

He's competing with Sean Hannity for that title. Wonder how altar boy Sean is spinning the porn-star-sex angle? I presume by ignoring it completely :halo: . What can you do but laugh at the clown show?

In the case of 9/11 there's a lot of unanswered questions in regards to how a modern steel framed building could have collapsed symmetrically and at free fall speed, with all the steel columns supporting the building turning into cheese. — Posty McPostface

WTC 7 was, I assume, a conventional steel frame building. WTC 1 and 2, the two big ones, were not. The big buildings weren't supported by interior steel or concrete columns. The floors were supported by the exterior steel walls of the building. The concrete floors were attached to the exterior, and within the floor structure were 'ties' that connected opposing exterior walls to add rigidity to the building.

The fires on and above the floors struck by the planes weakened the ties. The weight of the building floors in and above the fire, caused the exterior supporting structure to bulge, and begin to break away from the ties and the concrete floor--not instantly, but fairly quickly. When the weight exceed the support capacity of the bulging exterior walls, the x number of floors descended straight down (why would they not?) and overwhelmed the support capacity on the next floor, and the next floor... all the way to the bottom.

The 911 attackers did not need to plan this out--and as far as I know, they didn't expect the towers to collapse. They wanted to severely damage the WTC towers, and they would have totally succeeded if the building hadn't collapsed, and the fires had been put out. If they did plan pancaking, then they were that much more ingenious.

You are suspicious of steel giving way. Steel, as it happens, isn't heat resistant the way concrete is, or wood for that matter. The ties had been coated, but not heavily, and the shock of the crash caused much of the coating to fall off. Bear in mind, the ties were not heave H shaped supporting beams--they were rods, very strong, but not big enough to resist any force.

You are probably correct that a building constructed with the usual forest of steel columns would not have collapsed symmetrically, under the conditions of WTC 1 and 2.

WTC 7 was damaged in two ways: first by heavy debris from the collapsing towers, then by fire. The building did not weaken symmetrically, it was sagging and bulging before it collapsed. I haven't read or heard that much about WTC 7, so I can't say more about it.

911 was the second WTC attack. In 1993, if you remember, a truck bomb loaded with urea-nitrate explosives enhanced with hydrogen gas was detonated in the garage under the North Tower (can't remember if that was WTC 1 or 2--doesn't matter). The intention was to tip the North Tower over into the South Tower and cause both of them to hit the ground, killing a whole lot of people.

The truck bomb didn't happen to be just quite properly located to achieve the intended result. Had it been located in just the right place, the plan would probably have worked.

WTC 7 had a similar vulnerability. Certain support beams were critical in maintaining whole-building stability. Why would this be the case? Because of remodeling, design changes, and the required engineering changes needed to achieve stability. As it happens, the vulnerable support structures were damaged, contributing to the collapse.

From a conspiracy theorist POV, all this is probably unsatisfying because it leaves blame too diffused. Engineering decisions, lack of water pressure, electrical failures (no pumps), not enough insulation on rods, and so on and so forth.

Climate change conspiracy theorists think that global warming is a hoax for, I suspect, similar reasons. Blame is so diffused that there is no guilty party to pin it on. 300 years of coal and oil burning leaves a lot of guilty parties -- like, just about everyone. So, they reason, it must be a hoax.

You might be interested in a New Yorker Magazine story about the City Bank Building in NYC -- the one with the steeply canted roof and asymmetric supports at street level. The architect of the building had been thinking about the building, one fine day, and was thinking about what kind of fasteners were supposed to have been used to attach X-shaped structural members together. They were supposed to have been welded. When he checked it out, he found -- much to his horror, that they had not been welded, the bolts had been screwed into place. Fixing this wouldn't be easy, because the building was finished and occupied. He didn't think the building as it stood would be able to withstand an unlikely--but quite possible--hurricane force storm.

He alerted the building owners immediately, and crews began the process of opening up the walls over the X structures, one by one, floor by floor, and welding the many many bolts--this all being done at night so as not to disrupt bank operations. Then the walls had to be closed and refinished. God, think of the overtime!

If you think I speak like a true trumper, then you have perceived nothing about anything I have written. Plus, you aren't very good with non-literal statements. Kind of a sour-puss, actually.

↪charleton If you think I speak like a true trumper, then you have perceived nothing about anything I have written. Plus, you aren't very good with non-literal statements. Kind of a sour-puss, actually. — Bitter Crank

What else do you expect with stupid comments like "lip-syncers all. Sad".
Take a step back.

[Delete] @Baden

Whether the flag was true or false, it seems clear that it was a big red flag, and the flag was 'Russian'. It is surely undeniable that whoever had the resources to use a nerve agent, also had the resources to assassinate Skripal more surely and quietly. A message was being sent. So an important consideration in developing a theory about who sent the message is what message has been sent. One might also want to consider why such a message would be timely.

I think there is a strong message to any and every Russian abroad that they are not safe from the attentions of their home country if they speak or act against it. This might have timely application to any Russian who was considering cooperation with any of the Russiagate investigations.

There is also a message to Russians at home that their government is able to take action internationally with impunity. This seems largely unnecessary, though it is election time.

Then there is a general message to the world in general that Russia is dangerous, ruthless, violent and so on.

Are there other messages any of you are getting?

So candidates for a false flag operation are anyone who wants to prevent Russiagate scandals from being exposed, or anyone who wants to foment anti-Russian feeling, but with the limitation that they must have some kind of access to, or capability of manufacturing, the nerve agent and delivering it.

Who comes to mind?

Hmmm... well if you put the problem of false flag, then, well... it could be at least two possible countries. One is from the Orient, and the other is from the other side of the Atlantic...

What do you reckon? True flag or false flag?

Although unenlightened - I have to say that it would be a huge risk / gamble if it is false flag from those two countries. Just imagine that the attack failed, or the attacker got captured - great international scale disaster! On the other hand, if it is true flag, it seems somewhat more plausible to me.

I have to say that it would be a huge risk / gamble if it is false flag from those two countries. Just imagine that the attack failed, or the attacker got captured - great international scale disaster! On the other hand, if it is true flag, it seems somewhat more plausible to me. — Agustino

I agree. It would be less risky though with UK government or at least intelligence cooperation, but the fact that it makes perfect sense as a Russian operation that benefits the Russian government rather speaks against it being in the interests of any enemy of Russia at least. I assume that anyone capable cannot also be politically naive.

If you want to go really conspiratorial, you might start asking who benefits from increasing global conflict, and come up with a hypothetical cabal of arms dealers, allied with techy survivalists who think that a nuclear conflict would be just the thing to deal with an excess of population that is no longer needed in the age of 3d printing and robotics.

To me, it looks like we are all expendables, for those who want to control power.
I've could say that, the governments in power are responsible for this, but that would not be the truth.
I think the people of this planet are equaly responsible for all of this.
I think this is not a conspiracy at all, I would say this is the way how mankind keep running its own shit on this planet since the beginning -till the end .

What do you think?

Also: cui bono?

Ten days after Skripal, £48m magically appeared for a new facility to combat chemical weapons.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-russia-williamson/uk-to-invest-48-million-pounds-in-new-chemical-weapons-defence-centre-idUKKCN1GR1ID

Only a conspiracy theorist would suggest that the British secret service would poison a Russian ex-spy in order to scare the government into producing money for their jobs . Or Graham Greene, perhaps. How I miss him. I need him precisely for this turn of events.

https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/graham-greene/human-factor/

I love conspiracy theories. They always get people to think more deeply about a problem rather than just listen to the official reports. — René Descartes

Somewhat off-topic, but...

In my experience the opposite is true. Conspiracy theories appeal rather to those who want neat, logical answers, in which motivations are clear and intentions are cleanly carried through. They want a world that isn't messy like real life. Their thinking is anything but deep. Conspiracy theories are cartoon facts.