63% of Americans buy into at least one 'conspriacy theory', according to new poll

[Einzige]

Fairleigh Dickinson poll on conspiracy theories

Sixty-three percent of registered voters in the U.S. buy into at least one political conspiracy theory, according to results from a recent Fairleigh Dickinson University PublicMind Poll. The nationwide survey of registered voters asked Americans to evaluate four different political conspiracy theories: 56 percent of Democrats and 75 percent of Republicans say that at least one is likely true. This includes 36 percent who think that President Obama is hiding information about his background and early life, 25 percent who think that the government knew about 9/11 in advance, and 19 percent who think the 2012 Presidential election was stolen. Generally, the more people know about current events, the less likely they are to believe in conspiracy theories – but not among Republicans, where more knowledge leads to greater belief in political conspiracies.

The most popular of these conspiracy theories is the belief that President Obama is hiding important information about his background and early life, which would include what’s often referred to “birtherism.” Thirty-six percent of Americans think this is probably true, including 64 percent of Republicans and 14 percent of Democrats.

Comparing the number of Democratic partisans who believe Bush stole the 2004 election vs. Republican partisans who believe Obama stole the 2012 election, they're almost identical, though higher numbers of independents and Republicans who believe Bush stole the election makes the number of believers in that theory marginally higher:

23 percent of those interviewed say that President Bush’s supporters committed significant voter fraud to win him the 2004 Presidential election in Ohio. Belief in this conspiracy theory is highest among Democrats, (37 percent say it is likely true), though 17 percent of independents and 9 percent of Republicans think so as well.

Twenty percent of Americans think that President Obama’s supporters committed significant voter fraud in the2012 elections. Thirty-six percent of Republicans think this is the case, but only 4 percent of Democrats do.

It's an interesting observation, to me, that there are more Republicans and independents believe the 2004 election was stole than Democrats and independents who believe that the 2012 election was stolen, despite the fact Romney won independents in 2012 handily. This likely owes to the fact that 2004 was much closer than 2012, and thus had more potential to be 'stolen'.

 

[phoenyx]

Interesting article Einzige, thanks for sharing . Also found the title of the article quite interesting:
"25% OF AMERICANS ARE “TRUTHERS”"

 

[Gardener]

Too bad they didn't limit themselves to polling the habitual users of this forum.

They would have found a considerable percentage that believes ALL conspiracy theories.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Fairleigh Dickinson poll on conspiracy theories



Comparing the number of Democratic partisans who believe Bush stole the 2004 election vs. Republican partisans who believe Obama stole the 2012 election, they're almost identical, though higher numbers of independents and Republicans who believe Bush stole the election makes the number of believers in that theory marginally higher:





It's an interesting observation, to me, that there are more Republicans and independents believe the 2004 election was stole than Democrats and independents who believe that the 2012 election was stolen, despite the fact Romney won independents in 2012 handily. This likely owes to the fact that 2004 was much closer than 2012, and thus had more potential to be 'stolen'.

Hmm - they need to revisit what a conspiracy theory is.

Believing that someone is not being fully open about their past is not the same as believing that 9/11 happened because bombs were worked into the structure of the buildings so that one magical day they could pull the plug.

The first is just saying 'there's something we don't know - and we have no clue what it is - if it's anything' and the other is 'we have written this alternative theory of events to explain something that someone thought of one day.'

To me - something's a conspiracy if it has a deep meaning or hidden purpose . . . like, 'it explains why we REALLY use paper money and how aliens came to exist on our planet in a secret government organization' . . . something that simple says 'well - we don't know ___ or ___ . . . is there a reason?' is not conspiracy - that's just the basis of human-nature: curiosity and always wanting to know more.

Conspiracy theories rewrite history, ask strange and senseless questions, and ignore genuine and real factual answers in favor of idiocy and stupidity.

Both sides have those who believe in conspiracies . . . on the liberal side of the line there are people who firmly believe that all our involvements in the Middle East are driven by greed for oil dominance and nothing else - this is a conspiracy but they just didn't poll for that. Another is that only the poor join the military and are sent to fight because they're expendable and less valued - also not true but a fervent belief among some strong anti-military individuals. . . again, not polled for apparently.

I could select 10 conspiracies and poll and get the exact opposite results - so :shrug:

 

[phoenyx]

Too bad they didn't limit themselves to polling the habitual users of this forum.

They would have found a considerable percentage that believes ALL conspiracy theories.

As if you'd done a poll of users of this forum. What you say is flat out impossible; multiple conspiracy theories conflict with each other. Take 9/11: you simply can't believe the official conspiracy theory and any other, as they conflict. So do various alternative theories on the event.

 

[phoenyx]

Conspiracy theories rewrite history, ask strange and senseless questions, and ignore genuine and real factual answers in favor of idiocy and stupidity.

If it weren't for conspiracy theorists, Nixon would have probably continued on despite the watergate rumours. It's because of people who are not so easily cowed by official narratives that that one got out. Likewise, I sincerely doubt that the United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities (commonly referred to as the Church Committee) would have been created if it hadn't been for those who refused to believe the official story regarding the JFK assassination. In the case of the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations, I believe the evidence that public outcry against the flaws in the official story was the main impetus behind its creation is even stronger. From its wikipedia entry:
***The HSCA was a followup to the Hart-Schweiker and Church Committee hearings that had revealed CIA ties to other assassinations and assassination attempts. The HSCA resulted from public demands following hundreds of books, magazine articles, and video documentaries completed by private citizens and professional investigators since 1963. It was also spurred by public outcry after a copy of the Zapruder film was first shown in motion on TV in March 1975, after having been stored by Life magazine out of view of the public for almost twelve years.***

As to what it discovered:
***The United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) was established in 1976 to investigate the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. and the shooting of Alabama Governor George Wallace. The Committee investigated until 1978 and issued its final report, and concluded that Kennedy was very likely assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.
***

Salon wrote an article on it as well:
Congress Admits Lee Harvey Oswald Didn't Act Alone - Rw005g - Open Salon

I'm fairly confident that as time goes by, the outcry that the official narrative regarding 9/11 and other suspicious events will grow louder. The truth is sometimes like a buried treasure. People may try to bury it but there are some who will keep on searching for it until it's found.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

If it weren't for conspiracy theorists, Nixon would have probably continued on despite the watergate rumours. It's because of people who are not so easily cowed by official narratives that that one got out. Likewise, I sincerely doubt that the United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities (commonly referred to as the Church Committee) would have been created if it hadn't been for those who refused to believe the official story regarding the JFK assassination. In the case of the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations, I believe the evidence that public outcry against the flaws in the official story was the main impetus behind its creation is even stronger. From its wikipedia entry:
***The HSCA was a followup to the Hart-Schweiker and Church Committee hearings that had revealed CIA ties to other assassinations and assassination attempts. The HSCA resulted from public demands following hundreds of books, magazine articles, and video documentaries completed by private citizens and professional investigators since 1963. It was also spurred by public outcry after a copy of the Zapruder film was first shown in motion on TV in March 1975, after having been stored by Life magazine out of view of the public for almost twelve years.***

As to what it discovered:
***The United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) was established in 1976 to investigate the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. and the shooting of Alabama Governor George Wallace. The Committee investigated until 1978 and issued its final report, and concluded that Kennedy was very likely assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.
***

Salon wrote an article on it as well:
Congress Admits Lee Harvey Oswald Didn't Act Alone - Rw005g - Open Salon

I'm fairly confident that as time goes by, the outcry that the official narrative regarding 9/11 and other suspicious events will grow louder. The truth is sometimes like a buried treasure. People may try to bury it but there are some who will keep on searching for it until it's found.

I don't consider 'looking closely into the president's words and actions' to be conspiracy. Conspiracy happens when you look - and use what you find to feed something that isn't based on the reality and facts actually presented.

When it comes to 9/11 - there are concerns that are legitimate and genuine questions to ask . . . but the true conspiracy theorists don't want to examine what they find and then conclude something - instead they want to just go nuts. I've heard some of the craziest **** . . . we all have. There's a difference between investigating - and being a nutjob.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

"This includes 36 percent who think that President Obama is hiding information about his background and early life"

I get they're hinting at the birther angle, but this is likely true of every president

 

[Aunt Spiker]

"This includes 36 percent who think that President Obama is hiding information about his background and early life"

I get they're hinting at the birther angle, but this is likely true of every president

I think it's true - and it's not even related to the birther-thing which I've never gone for. . .what's he hiding? Whatever he doesn't feel is any of our business. . . whatever he feels people will focus on more than his life, now, as an adult.

Is that wrong?

No.

No conspiracy - he has the right to privacy just like anyone else.

 

[phoenyx]

I don't consider 'looking closely into the president's words and actions' to be conspiracy. Conspiracy happens when you look - and use what you find to feed something that isn't based on the reality and facts actually presented.

When it comes to 9/11 - there are concerns that are legitimate and genuine questions to ask . . . but the true conspiracy theorists don't want to examine what they find and then conclude something - instead they want to just go nuts. I've heard some of the craziest **** . . . we all have. There's a difference between investigating - and being a nutjob.

In other words, like man, you equite conspiracy theories as crazy, and thus conspiracy theorists must be "nut jobs". A while back, I wrote the following in response to something Wake had said regarding 9/11...

David Ray Griffin, in his book "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" explains, starting on Page 8, and also gives (in my view) compelling evidence that the official conspiracy theory is more irrational then the alternative one:

********
Conspiracy Theories: Generic, Rational, and Irrational

In criticisms of the 9/11 truth movement's alternative theory, nothing is more common than the designation of it as a conspiracy theory. This designation takes advantage of the fact that "conspiracy theory" has become such a derogatory term that the claim "I do not believe in conspiracy theories" is now almost a reflect action. Lying behind the term's derogatory connotation is the assumption that conspiracy theories are inherently irrational. The use of the term in this way, however, involves a confusion.

A conspiracy, according to my dictionary (23), is "an agreement to perform together an illegal, treacherous, or evil act". To hold a conspiracy theory about some event is, therefore, simply to believe that this event resulted from, or involved, such an agreement. This, we can say, is the generic meaning of the term.

We are conspiracy theorists in this generic sense if we believe that outlaws have conspired to rob banks, that corporate executives have conspired to defraud their customers, that tobacco companies have conspired with scientists-for-hire to conceal the health risks of smoking, that oil companies have conspired with scientists-for-hire to conceal the reality of human-caused global warming, or that US presidents have conspired with members of their administrations to present false pretexts for going to war. We are all, in other words, conspiracy theorists in the generic sense.

We clearly do not believe, therefore, that all conspiracy theories are irrational. Some of them, of course, are irrational, because they begin with their conclusion rather than with relevant evidence, they ignore all evidence that contradicts their predetermined conclusion, they violate scientific principles, and so on. We need, in other words, to distinguish between rational and irrational conspiracy theories. Michael Moore reflected this distinction in his well-known quip, "Now, I'm not into conspiracy theories, except the ones that are true". (24)

To apply this distinction to 9/11, we need to recognize that everyone holds a conspiracy theory in the generic sense about 9/11, because everyone believes that the 9/11 attacks resulted from a secret agreement to perform illegal, treacherous, and evil acts. People differ only about the identity of the conspirators. The official conspiracy theory holds that the conspirators were Osama bin Laden and other members of al-Qaeda. The alternative theory holds that the conspirators were, or at least included, people within our own institutions.

In light of these distinctions, we can see that most criticisms of the alternative theory about 9/11 are doubly fallacious. They first ignore the fact that the official account of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory in the generic sense. They then imply that conspiracy theories as such are irrational. On this fallacious basis, they conclude, without any serious examination of the empirical facts, that the alternative theory about 9/11 is irrational.

However, once the necessary distinctions are recognized, we can see that the question to be asked is: Assuming that one of the two conspiracy theories about 9/11 is irrational, because it is contradicted by the facts, is it the official theory or the alternative theory? Once this is acknowledged, the alternative theory about 9/11 cannot be denounced as irrational simply by virtue of being a conspiracy theory. It could validly be called less rational than the official conspiracy theory only by comparing the two theories with the evidence. But journalists typically excuse themselves from this critical task by persisting in the one-sided use of "conspiracy theory", long after this one-sidedness has been pointed out.(25)

For example, Jim Dwyer wrote a New York Times story entitled "2 US Reports Seek to Counter Conspiracy Theories about 9/11"(26) -not, for example, "2 US Reports Say Government's Conspiracy Theory is Better than Alternative Conspiracy Theory". One of those two reports, he pointed out, is a State Department document entitled "The Top September 11 Conspiracy Theories", but he failed to mention that the truly top 9/11 conspiracy theory is the government's own. Then Dwyer, on the basis of this one-sided usage, tried to poke some holes in the alternative theory without feeling a need, for the sake of journalistic balance, to poke holes in the government's theory- because it, of course, is not a conspiracy theory.

Matthew Rothschild, the editor of the Progressive, published and essay in his own journal entitled, "Enough of the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, Already".(27) He was not, of course, calling on the government to quit telling its story. He began his essay by saying:

Here's what the conspiracists believe: 9/11 was an inside job. Members of the Bush Administration ordered it, not Osama bin Laden. Arab hijackers may not have done the deed…. [T]he Twin Towers fell not because of the impact of the airplanes and the ensuing fires but because [of] explosives…. I'm amazed at how many people give credence to these theories.​

He did not have a paragraph saying:

Here's what the government's conspiracists believe: 19 hijackers with box-cutters defeated the most sophisticated defence system in history. Hani Hanjour, who could barely fly a Piper Cub, flew an astounding trajectory to crash Flight 77 into the Pentagon, the most well-protected building on earth. Other hijacker pilots, by flying planes into two buildings of the World Trade Center, caused three of them to collapse straight down, totally, and at virtually free-fall speed…. I'm amazed at how many people give credence to these theories.​

Besides failing to have this type of balanced appraoch, Rothschild described my books as ones in which "Griffin has peddled his conspiracy theory". He gave no parallel description of, say, The 9/11 Commission Report as a book in which the government peddled its conspiracy theory. Rothschild wrote, "The guru of the 9/11 conspiracy movement is David Ray Griffin". He did not add, "The guru of the government's 9/11 conspiracy theory is Phillip Zelikow" (the persona primarily responsible for The 9/11 Commission Report; see Chapter 2).

In response to the poll indicating that 42 percent of the American people believe that the government and the 9/11 Commission have covered up the truth about 9/11, Terry Allen, in an essay for In These Times magazine, explained: "Americans love a conspiracy.... There is something comforting about a world where someone is in charge." She did not offer this Americans-love a conspiracy explanation to account for the fact that 48 percent of our people still believe the official conspiracy theory- according to which evil outsiders secretly plotted the 9/11 attacks. She also ignored the fact that if people's beliefs are to be explained in terms of a psychological need for comfort, surely the most comforting belief about 9/11 would be that our government did not deliberately murder its own citizens.(28) (I, for one, wish that I could believe this.)

The psychological approach was taken even more fully in... Time magazine. Although it was entitled "Why the 9/11 Conspiracies Won't Go Away"(29), the author, Lev Grossman, was not seeking to explain why the government's conspiracy won't go away. He did quote Korey Rowe, one of the creators of the popular documentary film Loose Change, as saying:

That 19 hijackers are going to completely bypass security and crash four commercial airliners in a span of two hours, with no interuption from the military forces, in the most guarded airspace in the United States and the world? That to me is a conspiracy theory.​

But this did not faze Grossman. He continued to use the term "conspiracy theory" exclusively for the alternative theory.

Then, to explain why this conspiracy theory has gained increasing acceptance, rather than going away, he ignored the possibility that its evidence is so strong that, as more and more people become aware of it, they rightly find it convincing. He instead said, "a grand disaster like Sept. 11 needs a grand conspiracy behind it." The question of the quality of the evidence was thereby ignored.

Another problem with Grossman's explanation is that he, like Allen, got it backwards. As Paul Craig Roberts, who had been a leading member of the Reagan Administration, has pointed out:

Grossman's psychological explanation fails on its own terms. Which is the grandest conspiracy theory? The interpretation of 9/11 as an orchestrated casus belli to justify US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, or the interpretation that a handful of Muslims defeated US security multiple times in one short morning and successfully pulled off the most fantastic terrorist attack in history simply because they "hate our freedom and democracy"? Orchestrating events to justify wars is a stratagem so well worn as to be boring.(30)

Roberts also pointed out that the attempt to explain away the 9/11 truth movement in this way would not even begin to explain its leaders:

The scientists, engineers, and professors who pose the tough questions about 9/11 are not people who spend their lives making sense of their experience by constructing conspiracy theories. Scientists and scholars look to facts and evidence. They are concerned with the paucity of evidence in behalf of the official explanation. They stress that the official explanation is inconsistent with known laws of physics, and that the numerous security failures, when combined together, are a statistical improbability.​

********

 

[phoenyx]

I think it's true - and it's not even related to the birther-thing which I've never gone for. . .what's he hiding? Whatever he doesn't feel is any of our business. . . whatever he feels people will focus on more than his life, now, as an adult.

Is that wrong?

No.

No conspiracy - he has the right to privacy just like anyone else.

Personally, I'm not convinced that he was born in the United States. The thing is, I don't care. As someone mentioned here previously, it shouldn't matter where you're born. If one of your parents is American, that should be enough in my view. Not only that, but he was raised for the most part in America as well. I'd much rather focus on the fact that he bailed out the banks, but George W. Bush did that too. The international banking cartels are much more dangerous then where a sitting president happened to be when they were born on this planet in my view.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I'm all sighs over here with you . . . I'm saying - there is a difference between investigating and looking into something because the answer given doesn't quite explain it all - and then imagining that aliens built the pyramids.

In response to the questions raised about 9/11 - we had the 9/11 commission who write a full length report of it's findings. . . and then we have people still pushing hte belief that the buildings were rigged to explode before they were constructed.

Tell me - that second one there seem rational to you? No - it's not . . . it's not rational at all and we all know that except for the few who believe it.

I don't believe that questioning of "what he said - what they did" automatically equates to conspiracy. Conspiracy to me IS the extreme ****. Conspiracy is connecting dots that don't go together - and ignoring actual evidence that's uncovered when it doesn't suit said individual's pre-determined goal.

*What* people think of as 'conspiracy theory' (to me) is entirely different than what was presented in the OP - some of that *is* conspiracy theory and some of it *is not*

Not all of it *is* conspiracy - plain and simple.

 

[phoenyx]

I'm all sighs over here with you . . . I'm saying - there is a difference between investigating and looking into something because the answer given doesn't quite explain it all - and then imagining that aliens built the pyramids.

In response to the questions raised about 9/11 - we had the 9/11 commission who write a full length report of it's findings. . . and then we have people still pushing the belief that the buildings were rigged to explode before they were constructed.

Many whistleblowers from federal agencies such as the FBI, CIA and others, publicly trashed their copies of the 9/11 Commission Report. Ever heard of Sibel Edmonds and the National Security Whistleblowers Association that she founded? If not, you may want to see this documentary on her:

Tell me - that second one there seem rational to you?

Which one is this second one?

I don't believe that questioning of "what he said - what they did" automatically equates to conspiracy. Conspiracy to me IS the extreme ****.

The term "conspiracy" simply means that 2 or more people conspiring secretly to do something. Many have decided to define them only as conspiracies that aren't rational. I find this is a poor choice, as it paints all conspiracies with the same brush, whether the conspiracies are rational or irrational.

*What* people think of as 'conspiracy theory' (to me) is entirely different than what was presented in the OP - some of that *is* conspiracy theory and some of it *is not*

Not all of it *is* conspiracy - plain and simple.

Personally, I'd rather just focus on the evidence. I don't really like quibbling over how we define a theory, when the evidence should tell us all we need to know that really matters.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Many whistleblowers from federal agencies such as the FBI, CIA and others, publicly trashed their copies of the 9/11 Commission Report. Ever heard of Sibel Edmonds and the National Security Whistleblowers Association that she founded? If not, you may want to see this documentary on her:





Which one is this second one?



The term "conspiracy" simply means that 2 or more people conspiring secretly to do something. Many have decided to define them only as conspiracies that aren't rational. I find this is a poor choice, as it paints all conspiracies with the same brush, whether the conspiracies are rational or irrational.



Personally, I'd rather just focus on the evidence. I don't really like quibbling over how we define a theory, when the evidence should tell us all we need to know that really matters.

But when shown the evidence on 9/11 commission report you just write it off as wrong and never can give any evidence to back your claims. People like Griffin are laughing all the way to the bank doing his lecture tours and selling videos and books. Meanwhile he hasnt brought forth one piece of credible evidence. His so called expert science is so bad that its laughable. In fact its in the realm of pseudoscience and is an insult to real science.

 

[phoenyx]

But when shown the evidence on 9/11 commission report you just write it off as wrong and never can give any evidence to back your claims. People like Griffin are laughing all the way to the bank doing his lecture tours and selling videos and books. Meanwhile he hasnt brought forth one piece of credible evidence. His so called expert science is so bad that its laughable. In fact its in the realm of pseudoscience and is an insult to real science.

We're now clearly focusing on 9/11, so I've responded here:
Was 9/11 Really A Surprise Attack?

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Conspiracy theorists are some of the dumbest people know to man.

 

[Thoreau72]

Too bad they didn't limit themselves to polling the habitual users of this forum.

They would have found a considerable percentage that believes ALL conspiracy theories.

Right, well actually everybody believes one conspiracy theory or the other. Like rectums, everybody has one.

Some embrace the Official Theory, and the rest embrace other theories as to just exactly who it was who planned and executed the events of the day.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Right, well actually everybody believes one conspiracy theory or the other. Like rectums, everybody has one.

Some embrace the Official Theory, and the rest embrace other theories as to just exactly who it was who planned and executed the events of the day.

You are wrong again.

A conspiracy theory explains an event as being the result of an alleged plot by a covert group or organization or, more broadly, the idea that important political, social or economic events are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public. Conspiracy theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Someone who just believes the official story does not meet those requirements at all.

Conspiracy theory - RationalWiki

A conspiracy theory originally meant the "theory" that an event or phenomenon was the result of conspiracy between interested parties; however, from the mid-1960s onward, it is often used to denote ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish or irrational theories.[4][5][6][7][8] The problem is this results in rational conspiracy theories (like the Nazis themselves setting the Reichstag on fire) getting lost admist the noise of newsworthy but ridiculous, irrational, or outlandish conspiracy theories such as New World Order or the Moon Landing Hoax.

 

[phoenyx]

You are wrong again.

A conspiracy theory explains an event as being the result of an alleged plot by a covert group or organization or, more broadly, the idea that important political, social or economic events are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public. Conspiracy theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Someone who just believes the official story does not meet those requirements at all.

Conspiracy theory - RationalWiki

A conspiracy theory originally meant the "theory" that an event or phenomenon was the result of conspiracy between interested parties; however, from the mid-1960s onward, it is often used to denote ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish or irrational theories.[4][5][6][7][8] The problem is this results in rational conspiracy theories (like the Nazis themselves setting the Reichstag on fire) getting lost admist the noise of newsworthy but ridiculous, irrational, or outlandish conspiracy theories such as New World Order or the Moon Landing Hoax.

I don't see how you have shown Henry to be wrong at all. As a matter of fact, I believe your links agree with the gist of what he just said. I certainly believe that "a conspiracy theory explains an event as being the result of an alleged plot by a cover group or organization" and the idea that conspiracy theories these days are frequently used to "denote ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded or irrational theories. The problem is this results in rational conspiracy theories getting lost amidst the noise..."

We can certainly have a debate as to which conspiracy theories are rational and which ones aren't, but the notion that conspiracy theories are always mistaken is patently false.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

I don't see how you have shown Henry to be wrong at all. As a matter of fact, I believe your links agree with the gist of what he just said. I certainly believe that "a conspiracy theory explains an event as being the result of an alleged plot by a cover group or organization" and the idea that conspiracy theories these days are frequently used to "denote ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded or irrational theories. The problem is this results in rational conspiracy theories getting lost amidst the noise..."

We can certainly have a debate as to which conspiracy theories are rational and which ones aren't, but the notion that conspiracy theories are always mistaken is patently false.

The problem though is that all 9/11 conspiracies theories are in the realm of ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded or irrational theories. And the 9/11 mythology has grown to encompass all other events. Take the Sandy hook mass shooting for example its not a separate conspiracy theory its part of a grandiose conspiracy theory, the grand daddy conspiracy thats right up there with the plot of the the movie the matrix..

Here is what the truthers achieved: a diversion that has lead attention away from the piss poor handling of events after 9/11. The only possible conspiracy was the unethical use of the tragic events of 9/11 to enact things like the Patriot act and an excuse for war. And the failure of the president to do his job properly.

Asserting that someone was organized enough to fake 9/11 and then making claims that you people are the magic chosen ones that can uncover an operation that would be the grandest hoax of all time is just delusional and for you guys to further claim that 9/10's of the world was fooled but you and we are all gullible idiots is, well just insulting. And as if that was not enough for anyone to dismiss your claims it turns out that none of you have any evidence or proof. All that conspiracy theorist have offered is opinions and pseudoscience that they dogmatically claim meets scientific standards.

Perhaps you should go look at the Sandy Hook threads I purposely left you Easter eggs to see if you would at least try and do some research yourself instead of just parroting truther sites. But you failed to even attempt to discredit my assertions. The fact is that no truther debates they just spew parroted dogma at a sickening rate.

Seriously if you really believed that 9/11 was an inside job that Bin laden was a fake that Sandy hook was a false flag operation why are you just posting your silly theories on the internet? if even one of those things were real you should be doing a lot more than talking about it. But you wont do anything will you? And you cant do anything because the one thing that would get the entire nation and the world on your side you dont have. And that is evidence and proof.


This is why I push truthers to prove their claims because either they are serious or this is all just a hobby. WHich is it for you? I have to say if there was proof I would change my mind and start a revolution but I already researched the topic and found it to be just a bunch of fantasies. but dont take my word for it, of course you wont and will most likely go to your grave never having that tangible real proof that would draw you out of blogs and boards into the real world.

 

[phoenyx]

The problem though is that all 9/11 conspiracies theories are in the realm of ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded or irrational theories.

Well, I'm glad we're on the same page that both the official story regarding 9/11 as well as alternatives are all conspiracy theories. Moving on from that point, I'll address your assertion with a passage from David Ray Griffin's book Debunking 9/11 Debunking, starting around page 8:

***
Assuming that one of the two conspiracy theories about 9/11 is irrational, because it is contradicted by the facts, is it the official theory or the alternative theory? Once this is acknowledged, the alternative theory about 9/11 cannot be denounced as irrational simply by virtue of being a conspiracy theory. It could validly be called less rational than the official conspiracy theory only by comparing the two theories with the evidence. But journalists typically excuse themselves from this critical task by persisting in the one-sided use of "conspiracy theory", long after this one-sidedness has been pointed out.(25)

For example, Jim Dwyer wrote a New York Times story entitled "2 US Reports Seek to Counter Conspiracy Theories about 9/11"(26) -not, for example, "2 US Reports Say Government's Conspiracy Theory is Better than Alternative Conspiracy Theory". One of those two reports, he pointed out, is a State Department document entitled "The Top September 11 Conspiracy Theories", but he failed to mention that the truly top 9/11 conspiracy theory is the government's own. Then Dwyer, on the basis of this one-sided usage, tried to poke some holes in the alternative theory without feeling a need, for the sake of journalistic balance, to poke holes in the government's theory- because it, of course, is not a conspiracy theory.

Matthew Rothschild, the editor of the Progressive, published and essay in his own journal entitled, "Enough of the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, Already".(27) He was not, of course, calling on the government to quit telling its story. He began his essay by saying:

Here's what the conspiracists believe: 9/11 was an inside job. Members of the Bush Administration ordered it, not Osama bin Laden. Arab hijackers may not have done the deed…. [T]he Twin Towers fell not because of the impact of the airplanes and the ensuing fires but because [of] explosives…. I'm amazed at how many people give credence to these theories.​

He did not have a paragraph saying:

Here's what the government's conspiracists believe: 19 hijackers with box-cutters defeated the most sophisticated defence system in history. Hani Hanjour, who could barely fly a Piper Cub, flew an astounding trajectory to crash Flight 77 into the Pentagon, the most well-protected building on earth. Other hijacker pilots, by flying planes into two buildings of the World Trade Center, caused three of them to collapse straight down, totally, and at virtually free-fall speed…. I'm amazed at how many people give credence to these theories.​

Besides failing to have this type of balanced approach, Rothschild described my books as ones in which "Griffin has peddled his conspiracy theory". He gave no parallel description of, say, The 9/11 Commission Report as a book in which the government peddled its conspiracy theory. Rothschild wrote, "The guru of the 9/11 conspiracy movement is David Ray Griffin". He did not add, "The guru of the government's 9/11 conspiracy theory is Phillip Zelikow" (the persona primarily responsible for The 9/11 Commission Report; see Chapter 2).

In response to the poll indicating that 42 percent of the American people believe that the government and the 9/11 Commission have covered up the truth about 9/11, Terry Allen, in an essay for In These Times magazine, explained: "Americans love a conspiracy.... There is something comforting about a world where someone is in charge." She did not offer this Americans-love a conspiracy explanation to account for the fact that 48 percent of our people still believe the official conspiracy theory- according to which evil outsiders secretly plotted the 9/11 attacks. She also ignored the fact that if people's beliefs are to be explained in terms of a psychological need for comfort, surely the most comforting belief about 9/11 would be that our government did not deliberately murder its own citizens.(28) (I, for one, wish that I could believe this.)

The psychological approach was taken even more fully in... Time magazine. Although it was entitled "Why the 9/11 Conspiracies Won't Go Away"(29), the author, Lev Grossman, was not seeking to explain why the government's conspiracy won't go away. He did quote Korey Rowe, one of the creators of the popular documentary film Loose Change, as saying:

That 19 hijackers are going to completely bypass security and crash four commercial airliners in a span of two hours, with no interuption from the military forces, in the most guarded airspace in the United States and the world? That to me is a conspiracy theory.​

But this did not faze Grossman. He continued to use the term "conspiracy theory" exclusively for the alternative theory.

Then, to explain why this conspiracy theory has gained increasing acceptance, rather than going away, he ignored the possibility that its evidence is so strong that, as more and more people become aware of it, they rightly find it convincing. He instead said, "a grand disaster like Sept. 11 needs a grand conspiracy behind it." The question of the quality of the evidence was thereby ignored.

Another problem with Grossman's explanation is that he, like Allen, got it backwards. As Paul Craig Roberts, who had been a leading member of the Reagan Administration, has pointed out:

Grossman's psychological explanation fails on its own terms. Which is the grandest conspiracy theory? The interpretation of 9/11 as an orchestrated casus belli to justify US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, or the interpretation that a handful of Muslims defeated US security multiple times in one short morning and successfully pulled off the most fantastic terrorist attack in history simply because they "hate our freedom and democracy"? Orchestrating events to justify wars is a stratagem so well worn as to be boring.(30)

Roberts also pointed out that the attempt to explain away the 9/11 truth movement in this way would not even begin to explain its leaders:

The scientists, engineers, and professors who pose the tough questions about 9/11 are not people who spend their lives making sense of their experience by constructing conspiracy theories. Scientists and scholars look to facts and evidence. They are concerned with the paucity of evidence in behalf of the official explanation. They stress that the official explanation is inconsistent with known laws of physics, and that the numerous security failures, when combined together, are a statistical improbability.​

********

 

[Thoreau72]

You are wrong again.

A conspiracy theory explains an event as being the result of an alleged plot by a covert group or organization or, more broadly, the idea that important political, social or economic events are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public. Conspiracy theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Someone who just believes the official story does not meet those requirements at all.

Conspiracy theory - RationalWiki

A conspiracy theory originally meant the "theory" that an event or phenomenon was the result of conspiracy between interested parties; however, from the mid-1960s onward, it is often used to denote ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish or irrational theories.[4][5][6][7][8] The problem is this results in rational conspiracy theories (like the Nazis themselves setting the Reichstag on fire) getting lost admist the noise of newsworthy but ridiculous, irrational, or outlandish conspiracy theories such as New World Order or the Moon Landing Hoax.

I probably forgot to tell you I have a degree in English. Yes, it's my first language, and I do read, speak and understand it.

I do know the meaning of the word 'conspiracy'. And your Wiki references are in error. The word does not DENOTE ridiculous or misconceived theories, it CONNOTES that.

Do you use old-fashioned paper based dictionaries? They are most helpful.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

I probably forgot to tell you I have a degree in English. Yes, it's my first language, and I do read, speak and understand it.

I do know the meaning of the word 'conspiracy'. And your Wiki references are in error. The word does not DENOTE ridiculous or misconceived theories, it CONNOTES that.

Do you use old-fashioned paper based dictionaries? They are most helpful.

Dont ignore the RationalWiki explanation or you will be ignoring reality. perhaps you dont see your theories as complete BS but many people do see Conspiracy theories as complete BS.

ANd how could we not see conspiracy theories as ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish or irrational theories. Especially when they go on about crazy things like giant glass structures on the moon, aliens and everything is a hoax because of the NWO and FEMA.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Well, I'm glad we're on the same page that both the official story regarding 9/11 as well as alternatives are all conspiracy theories. Moving on from that point, I'll address your assertion with a passage from David Ray Griffin's book Debunking 9/11 Debunking, starting around page 8:

***
Assuming that one of the two conspiracy theories about 9/11 is irrational, because it is contradicted by the facts, is it the official theory or the alternative theory? Once this is acknowledged, the alternative theory about 9/11 cannot be denounced as irrational simply by virtue of being a conspiracy theory. It could validly be called less rational than the official conspiracy theory only by comparing the two theories with the evidence. But journalists typically excuse themselves from this critical task by persisting in the one-sided use of "conspiracy theory", long after this one-sidedness has been pointed out.(25)

For example, Jim Dwyer wrote a New York Times story entitled "2 US Reports Seek to Counter Conspiracy Theories about 9/11"(26) -not, for example, "2 US Reports Say Government's Conspiracy Theory is Better than Alternative Conspiracy Theory". One of those two reports, he pointed out, is a State Department document entitled "The Top September 11 Conspiracy Theories", but he failed to mention that the truly top 9/11 conspiracy theory is the government's own. Then Dwyer, on the basis of this one-sided usage, tried to poke some holes in the alternative theory without feeling a need, for the sake of journalistic balance, to poke holes in the government's theory- because it, of course, is not a conspiracy theory.

Matthew Rothschild, the editor of the Progressive, published and essay in his own journal entitled, "Enough of the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, Already".(27) He was not, of course, calling on the government to quit telling its story. He began his essay by saying:

Here's what the conspiracists believe: 9/11 was an inside job. Members of the Bush Administration ordered it, not Osama bin Laden. Arab hijackers may not have done the deed…. [T]he Twin Towers fell not because of the impact of the airplanes and the ensuing fires but because [of] explosives…. I'm amazed at how many people give credence to these theories.​

He did not have a paragraph saying:

Here's what the government's conspiracists believe: 19 hijackers with box-cutters defeated the most sophisticated defence system in history. Hani Hanjour, who could barely fly a Piper Cub, flew an astounding trajectory to crash Flight 77 into the Pentagon, the most well-protected building on earth. Other hijacker pilots, by flying planes into two buildings of the World Trade Center, caused three of them to collapse straight down, totally, and at virtually free-fall speed…. I'm amazed at how many people give credence to these theories.​

Besides failing to have this type of balanced approach, Rothschild described my books as ones in which "Griffin has peddled his conspiracy theory". He gave no parallel description of, say, The 9/11 Commission Report as a book in which the government peddled its conspiracy theory. Rothschild wrote, "The guru of the 9/11 conspiracy movement is David Ray Griffin". He did not add, "The guru of the government's 9/11 conspiracy theory is Phillip Zelikow" (the persona primarily responsible for The 9/11 Commission Report; see Chapter 2).

In response to the poll indicating that 42 percent of the American people believe that the government and the 9/11 Commission have covered up the truth about 9/11, Terry Allen, in an essay for In These Times magazine, explained: "Americans love a conspiracy.... There is something comforting about a world where someone is in charge." She did not offer this Americans-love a conspiracy explanation to account for the fact that 48 percent of our people still believe the official conspiracy theory- according to which evil outsiders secretly plotted the 9/11 attacks. She also ignored the fact that if people's beliefs are to be explained in terms of a psychological need for comfort, surely the most comforting belief about 9/11 would be that our government did not deliberately murder its own citizens.(28) (I, for one, wish that I could believe this.)

The psychological approach was taken even more fully in... Time magazine. Although it was entitled "Why the 9/11 Conspiracies Won't Go Away"(29), the author, Lev Grossman, was not seeking to explain why the government's conspiracy won't go away. He did quote Korey Rowe, one of the creators of the popular documentary film Loose Change, as saying:

That 19 hijackers are going to completely bypass security and crash four commercial airliners in a span of two hours, with no interuption from the military forces, in the most guarded airspace in the United States and the world? That to me is a conspiracy theory.​

But this did not faze Grossman. He continued to use the term "conspiracy theory" exclusively for the alternative theory.

Then, to explain why this conspiracy theory has gained increasing acceptance, rather than going away, he ignored the possibility that its evidence is so strong that, as more and more people become aware of it, they rightly find it convincing. He instead said, "a grand disaster like Sept. 11 needs a grand conspiracy behind it." The question of the quality of the evidence was thereby ignored.

Another problem with Grossman's explanation is that he, like Allen, got it backwards. As Paul Craig Roberts, who had been a leading member of the Reagan Administration, has pointed out:

Grossman's psychological explanation fails on its own terms. Which is the grandest conspiracy theory? The interpretation of 9/11 as an orchestrated casus belli to justify US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, or the interpretation that a handful of Muslims defeated US security multiple times in one short morning and successfully pulled off the most fantastic terrorist attack in history simply because they "hate our freedom and democracy"? Orchestrating events to justify wars is a stratagem so well worn as to be boring.(30)

Roberts also pointed out that the attempt to explain away the 9/11 truth movement in this way would not even begin to explain its leaders:

The scientists, engineers, and professors who pose the tough questions about 9/11 are not people who spend their lives making sense of their experience by constructing conspiracy theories. Scientists and scholars look to facts and evidence. They are concerned with the paucity of evidence in behalf of the official explanation. They stress that the official explanation is inconsistent with known laws of physics, and that the numerous security failures, when combined together, are a statistical improbability.​

********

Nope did not agree with you at all. But am not surprised that you would try something that cheesy.

 

[Thoreau72]

Dont ignore the RationalWiki explanation or you will be ignoring reality. perhaps you dont see your theories as complete BS but many people do see Conspiracy theories as complete BS.

ANd how could we not see conspiracy theories as ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish or irrational theories. Especially when they go on about crazy things like giant glass structures on the moon, aliens and everything is a hoax because of the NWO and FEMA.

The reality YOU live in sir, I want no part of. eace