Debate : 14779


Off-Topic / Debate / 14779

Conspiracy theories —Larry Pieniazek
Sometimes I find the strangest links in the strangest places... (URL) link was in someone's sig on a www.megatokyo.com discussion forum. I'm dubious at best about the veracity of this particular theory. (23 years ago, 21-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

	Re: Conspiracy theories —Richard Marchetti
	(...) So why post the link here? I actually found some of the stuff at the website pretty good. Most of it seems in keeping with what Bill Moyers and the Christic Institute announced on PBS TV about 14 years ago -- stuff I found more than pursuasive (...) (23 years ago, 21-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Conspiracy theories —Larry Pieniazek
		(...) Because I thought it was an interesting link and that it would spark some interesting discussion. And it was, and it did. You all know that I'm mostly in the "can't trust government" camp. And I have no doubt whatever that (to pick one facet) (...) (23 years ago, 22-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

			Re: Conspiracy theories —Richard Marchetti
			(...) I might believe the former, but not the latter as much. I am willing to believe that the U.S. govt. supported a plan that they were not fully aware of ala "The Tailor of Panama." (...) Of course, I agree totally with this part. But what (...) (23 years ago, 22-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

	Re: Conspiracy theories —John Grubber
	What i would like to know is: 1- what really happened to the flight over pennsylvania 2- what happened to the 5th plane that was initially reported to have been highjacked 3- what happened with the car bomb that was reported to have exploded outside (...) (23 years ago, 21-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Conspiracy theories —Dave Schuler
		(...) That's one of the million dollar questions, and we may have to content ourselves with "the passengers appear to have disrupted the hijackers' plan which then resulted in the crash of the plane." It doesn't seem likely that we'll ever have a (...) (23 years ago, 21-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

			Re: Conspiracy theories —John Grubber
			(...) Very True. I do think it was dealt with in the most unfortunate means though (shot down)- of course i have no proof, but lack of evidence rarely stops the big media, so why should i worry? ;-P (...) Good point. I guess the conspiracy stuff can (...) (23 years ago, 21-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

				Re: Conspiracy theories —Dave Schuler
				(...) That honestly doesn't sound suspicious to me, since, had the US Gov't not purchased the exclusive rights, then the Taliban could easily have watched US troop movements; there's no reasonable way to conclude (but speculation is fair game) (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

			Re: Conspiracy theories —Scott Arthur
			(...) Was there not a news item reporting that debris from that plane had landed same way before the actual impact site? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 22-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

				Re: Conspiracy theories —Dave Schuler
				(...) I haven't heard that, actually. Do you know of a web cite? On the other hand, the more recent Airbus crash in Queens did involve several debris sites for the tail rudder, the engines, and the main body. Dave! (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

	Re: Conspiracy theories —Dave Schuler
	(...) This bit in particular: (...) Seems, for the conspiracy-minded, too good to be false. However, another website at (URL) offers a nicely straightforward counter viewpoint: (...) I know, I know. "Of course they're going to deny it--that's how (...) (23 years ago, 21-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Conspiracy theories —Richard Marchetti
		(...) You're right that such thinking is predicated on a logical fallacy, but that doesn't make assertions on either side true or false on that basis alone. And I found your "snopes" site to be no more reliable (plenty of asserted truth there, (...) (23 years ago, 21-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)