Are conspiracy theorists wrong about almost everything?

atone

atone

Guest
#163
#163
Rambutan said:
Long time listener and occasional forum lurker here. Feeling the need to share my personal concerns about the direction that this podcast and forum seems to have been moving for the past few years now, not only because I love the show but also because I’m open to the idea that I’m missing out on important info here.

It seems the focus of the show has gradually shifted from inquiries into the nature of consciousness, exploration of radical scientific theories, NDEs, etc. to the entertaining of (what appears to me to be) increasingly dubious conspiracy theories. And actually, “entertaining” is probably the wrong word here; many times I hear Alex refer to such theories as if their validity were self-evident (e.g. climate change hoax, covid-19 plandemic, 911 inside job, materialist/physicalist agenda of the scientific elite). I think I’ve even heard Alex lend credence to pizzagate at one point.

Before I proceed, I want to acknowledge that
  1. I haven’t deeply investigated any of these theories
  2. Some conspiracy theories have been validated (e.g. mk-ultra, watergate)
  3. I’m open to the idea that I might be wrong about a lot of this
  4. I’m probably wrong about a lot of this
Lately I’ve heard Alex come down on Bernardo Kastrup, implying that his idealist arguments are weakened by not getting the conspiracy thing right. I’m sure I’m in the minority here but I think he’s actually got it exactly right. Occam’s Razor is the first tool that should be employed when looking at any theory and I don’t see many of these theories surviving the cut.

I get it, the allure of conspiracy theories is pretty obvious:
  1. Epistemic: It feels good to know more than your peers; the mysteries of the world seem less opaque; presents a clear target on which to focus outrage
  2. Existential: you believe your knowledge about the underlying and largely secret machinations of society or the world in general will better equip you to survive and thrive in it
  3. Transcendental: This special knowledge gives you a sense of community with others who share it, sense of belonging (e.g. this forum)
The thing is, conspiracies of any magnitude are incredibly hard to pull off. Any conspiracy is predicated on secrecy, and secrecy on such a massive scale requires an equally massive coordinated effort to keep the truth hidden. And, as we know, people are notoriously bad at keeping secrets. We see whistleblowing at all levels of government, victims of all types of abuse eventually come forward to accuse their wrongdoers, the truth tends to come out. Taking the 1968 moon landing hoax as an example, a study by Dr David Grimes of Oxford determined that there would have to be 411,000 people involved with maintaining the conspiracy and, based on his equations, it would have been revealed in about 3.7 years. Of course this is just his estimate and I can’t speak to the quality of this work but common sense would indicate that this is eminently plausible. Applying this logic to the 911 conspiracy theory, if it were true could it really have remained intact for the past 19+ years?

As Mitch Horowitz put it on a recent podcast (paraphrased) “Conspiracy theories satisfy man’s perpetual search for an enemy”. To me the conspiratorial mindset is overwhelmingly gloomy, tends to breed cynicism, paranoia and extreme mistrust of others, an “us vs. them” attitude...definitely not a fun way to live life. Obviously conspiracy theories shouldn’t be discarded just because we don’t like the world they describe, I’d just like to see more skepticism and diligence employed in their assessment, here and on the podcast.

Sorry this got so long, but all this said, many people much smarter and more educated on the subject (including Alex and Gordon White of Rune soup) see it very differently so my mind is open. What am I missing?
Click to expand...
You're correct about what you say. What it is IMO is conspiracy theories sell books and create false chat from ,we didn't land on then moon
Bush,Chaney caused 9/11 now I bet trump did it is out there, flat earth, the climate change hoax etc …….complete Bullshit!
 
Charlie Primero

Charlie Primero

Member
#164
#164
I've been an amateur Conspiracy Researcher since 1993. Benefit from my suffering.

I sorted through mountains of utter B.S. to find the best Conspiracy Researchers & Presenters.

Here are my favorites. They all have an accuracy rate greater than 90%, and a willful deception rate of 0%.

------------------

Adam Curry - https://www.noagendashow.net

Al Borealis - https://www.forumborealis.net

Ben Davidson - https://suspicious0bservers.org

Daniel Liszt - https://www.darkjournalist.com

Devon Stack - http://blackpilled.com

Dr. Joseph Farrell - https://gizadeathstar.com

Jason Horsley - https://auticulture.com

Jay Dyer - https://jaysanalysis.com

Katherine Austin Fitts - https://home.solari.com

Lynn Picknett & Clive Prince - http://www.picknettprince.com/home.htm

Peter Dale Scott - https://www.peterdalescott.net

Randall Carlson ∴ - https://sacredgeometryinternational.com

Richard Dolan - https://richarddolanmembers.com

Richard Grove - https://tragedyandhope.com

Robert Sepher - https://atlanteangardens.blogspot.com

Trivium Education - http://www.triviumeducation.com

William Ramsey - https://www.williamramseyinvestigates.com
 
Last edited:
Eric Newhill

Eric Newhill

New
#166
#166
LoneShaman said:
The ONLY way to match what happened was with a global simultaneous failure of all internal columns followed by a global simultaneous failure of all outer columns over 8 stories some where below the 16th story... was the only way to account for the observable phenomena.
Click to expand...
This highlights one of my points - how do you know any of that? You're just choosing to rely on what one group of people says over others. You don't understand how something happened. A small group confirms that your eyes aren't deceiving you and you align with them. Why trust those guys? How thorough was the analysis they did? How in depth their knowledge? How honest are they?

LoneShaman said:
Testimony of explosions and molten steel, even burning steel as well as forensic evidence support the conclusion.
Click to expand...
Why accept that testimony over the the testimony of people in my links? Eye witness testimony is almost nefariously poor. What expertise did any of the witnesses have? How many had heard an explosion before let alone multiple explosions of different types so that they could distinguish between one caused by high explosives versus pneumatic pressure from panicking floors of a gazillion tons of material crashing to the earth? How many were blacksmiths or iron workers who would know what "molten" steel looks like as opposed to red hot or something else?

On that note I used to breed thoroughbred race horses and we'd get them under saddle too. You have to get the shoes just right when starting the horses. No way to count how many shoes I saw made to fit for horses. My blacksmith would be fascinated, I'm sure, to learn that heat can't soften steel and make it pliable. Sorry...couldn't resist. But that's how it goes. My personal experience is ingrained with the idea that heat makes steel pliable. It also says that thermite doesn't turn steel beams molten. Read US military manuals on thermite grenades, etc. I'm sure they're available on line or somewhere. Pretty sure they don't mention the tactic of a squad running forward and tossing thermite grenades on enemy tanks to liquify them.
 
LoneShaman

LoneShaman

Member
#167
#167
Eric Newhill said:
This highlights one of my points - how do you know any of that? You're just choosing to rely on what one group of people says over others. You don't understand how something happened. A small group confirms that your eyes aren't deceiving you and you align with them. Why trust those guys? How thorough was the analysis they did? How in depth their knowledge? How honest are they?
Click to expand...
I have made my case, I would have to repeat myself to answer. I understand it is outside of your tolerance zone. I am not trying to convince you Eric, I don't think that is possible. That would be up to you.

It is not just them but thousands of professionals. So no I am not relying on one group at all and my reliance is on many, many factors, all the evidence and not just parts of it while ignoring other parts or adding speculation. I have tried to avoid that, which is why I am focused on just this aspect.

All the data from that study, every aspect is open to the public, unlike NIST who discredited themselves by not changing or correcting their just so story.

I will say this though, (again) it is not physically possible to have symmetrical free fall without global failure. Symmetrical collapse requires simultaneous symmetrical failure. Destruction by fire is incremental and follows the path of least resistance and yes steel frames buckle and bend in fire has they have in many other cases but still the same principles apply. You don't have to be an engineer to know this.

What you are asking for is something that could be called magical.

Witness testimony is corroborating evidence. Forensics showed intragranular melting. The presence of elemental sulfur. A large explosion is heard on camera just before WTC7 collapsed. None of this fits in with your speculations.
 
Last edited:
Chester Hunter

Chester Hunter

New
#168
#168
Here's the bottom line on Building Seven -

Just like a bookie sets odds on a sporting event, those odds are calculated on all known factors and all perceived factors available to the experienced bookmaker. Most events are close to 50/50 but sometimes there are matches where one side is the obvious huge favorite, These odds are "juiced" and made available to the public for betting purposes in the odds format attractive to the target market.

Take out the juice and convert the odds to percentages and what you'll always get when you add up the percentages for all the selections is 100% So within that framework - we could reduce it to a two selection market.

Selection A would be "Building Seven was a demolition"

Selection B would be "Building Seven came down for any other reason"

The fact is only if Selection A is true - which means there are (or at least "were") those who were involved in setting all that up and then either the same people or someone else "pushing the plunger" then they know this to be a fact or at least knew this to be a fact in case they are all now dead.

If Selection B is true, no one can definitively know that.

So excluding you being someone "in on it" (if Selection A is true) then neither selection A or Selection B can have honest odds set at 100% (which would make the other selection 0%).

So within that reality, each individual has a fair right to make their own odds. If this were an event that would one day have a clear result for betting purposes then the bet could be "settled." Sadly this one likely won't ever be (well... unless, again, Selection A is true and you were in on it).

My personal odds would be set at Selection A is 95% likely true.

My reasons are - The collapse of Building Seven was announced by the "Operation Mockingbird" Press on one major news network (I think it was the BBC) prior to the actual collapse of the building. In fact, in the video clip of this announcement, Building Seven is still showing standing in the background shot behind the presenter. We call that an "ooops."

The second reason is the way it feel and the rapidity of the fall. My logic is that even an idiot can see it was a controlled demolition.

The third reason - records were held in that building which, if destroyed and lost forever, would be greatly appreciated by a three letter agency which may otherwise experience grave exposure if those records ever fell into the wrong hands.

I have a speculation about what likely happened to those records. They WERE absconded with and have been held in certain hands and used for blackmail purposes ever since - gotta keep everyone in line, right? Ohhh and, what about a rogue "save the day" type guy who might want to expose the fraud. Let's consider examples of folks like that... say, Seth Rich for example? Just to name one example among thousands over the course of history?

Anways - note, I still make Selection B 5%. Why? Because I just don't know and I could lose my bet on the heavy favorite (as I have many times before).
 
malf

malf

Member
#170
#170
Any controlled demolition of a building that size, in the manner described by CTers, would have been preceded by explosions estimated to measure 120-130dB at half a mile away.

There are no credible recordings or witnesses to this.
 
malf

malf

Member
#171
#171
malf said:
Any controlled demolition of a building that size, in the manner described by CTers, would have been preceded by explosions estimated to measure 120-130dB at half a mile away.

There are no credible recordings or witnesses to this.
Click to expand...
Although some on this thread have cleared the way to invoke alien tech...
 
atone

atone

Guest
#178
#178
Rambutan said:
Long time listener and occasional forum lurker here. Feeling the need to share my personal concerns about the direction that this podcast and forum seems to have been moving for the past few years now, not only because I love the show but also because I’m open to the idea that I’m missing out on important info here.

It seems the focus of the show has gradually shifted from inquiries into the nature of consciousness, exploration of radical scientific theories, NDEs, etc. to the entertaining of (what appears to me to be) increasingly dubious conspiracy theories. And actually, “entertaining” is probably the wrong word here; many times I hear Alex refer to such theories as if their validity were self-evident (e.g. climate change hoax, covid-19 plandemic, 911 inside job, materialist/physicalist agenda of the scientific elite). I think I’ve even heard Alex lend credence to pizzagate at one point.

Before I proceed, I want to acknowledge that
  1. I haven’t deeply investigated any of these theories
  2. Some conspiracy theories have been validated (e.g. mk-ultra, watergate)
  3. I’m open to the idea that I might be wrong about a lot of this
  4. I’m probably wrong about a lot of this
Lately I’ve heard Alex come down on Bernardo Kastrup, implying that his idealist arguments are weakened by not getting the conspiracy thing right. I’m sure I’m in the minority here but I think he’s actually got it exactly right. Occam’s Razor is the first tool that should be employed when looking at any theory and I don’t see many of these theories surviving the cut.

I get it, the allure of conspiracy theories is pretty obvious:
  1. Epistemic: It feels good to know more than your peers; the mysteries of the world seem less opaque; presents a clear target on which to focus outrage
  2. Existential: you believe your knowledge about the underlying and largely secret machinations of society or the world in general will better equip you to survive and thrive in it
  3. Transcendental: This special knowledge gives you a sense of community with others who share it, sense of belonging (e.g. this forum)
The thing is, conspiracies of any magnitude are incredibly hard to pull off. Any conspiracy is predicated on secrecy, and secrecy on such a massive scale requires an equally massive coordinated effort to keep the truth hidden. And, as we know, people are notoriously bad at keeping secrets. We see whistleblowing at all levels of government, victims of all types of abuse eventually come forward to accuse their wrongdoers, the truth tends to come out. Taking the 1968 moon landing hoax as an example, a study by Dr David Grimes of Oxford determined that there would have to be 411,000 people involved with maintaining the conspiracy and, based on his equations, it would have been revealed in about 3.7 years. Of course this is just his estimate and I can’t speak to the quality of this work but common sense would indicate that this is eminently plausible. Applying this logic to the 911 conspiracy theory, if it were true could it really have remained intact for the past 19+ years?

As Mitch Horowitz put it on a recent podcast (paraphrased) “Conspiracy theories satisfy man’s perpetual search for an enemy”. To me the conspiratorial mindset is overwhelmingly gloomy, tends to breed cynicism, paranoia and extreme mistrust of others, an “us vs. them” attitude...definitely not a fun way to live life. Obviously conspiracy theories shouldn’t be discarded just because we don’t like the world they describe, I’d just like to see more skepticism and diligence employed in their assessment, here and on the podcast.

Sorry this got so long, but all this said, many people much smarter and more educated on the subject (including Alex and Gordon White of Rune soup) see it very differently so my mind is open. What am I missing?
Click to expand...
This site went from talking about things cool to a cheap easy paper-thrill not very interesting . YAWN!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top