4 ms·

I'm constantly in a state of flipping between "this is a psyop" to "stupider things have come to light." I guess my best example is how people claim 9/11 was a

by robswc 4y ago

I'm constantly in a state of flipping between "this is a psyop" to "stupider things have come to light." I guess my best example is how people claim 9/11 was an inside job. All the evidence is made up of "mistakes" or inconsistencies that someone found by playing back the videos over and over in their basement. I would think anyone with the means to fake an attack like that would be able to do so without making such trivial mistakes... but then lets say that it was totally an inside job. All those mistakes don't matter because everyone believes it anyways. This is similar to the Holocaust in the sense that a lot of people simply didn't believe it was happening because it was too crazy, too big of a thing to happen. * want to say, I don't believe in that conspiracy at all, was more thinking out loud. In regards to the UFOs... what benefit is there for the pentagon to put on this whole show? (Yes, I know ppl more or less asked for it but it doesn't mean they had to)

tshaddox 4y ago
> I would think anyone with the means to fake an attack like that would be able to do so without making such trivial mistakes But once you’re agreeing to go along with conspiracy theory epistemology, you can keep looping forever. Anything that you provide as reasons that you believe it’s not a conspiracy could have been placed there by the conspirators to convince you there’s no conspiracy! If you see no evidence of conspiracy, well then clearly that’s what the conspirators wanted! If you see some small mistakes or inconsistencies, and you take that as evidence that it wasn’t a conspiracy (because of course competent conspirators would never allow small mistakes or inconsistencies), well then clearly the conspirators were so competent that they allowed a few small mistakes and inconsistencies to throw you off the scent!
- robswc 4y ago
  ahah, true. That's why I generally don't give much weight to those types of "evidence." What you're describing is usually what happens when you talk to them.
13113 4y ago
turdit 4y ago
“All the evidence is made up of "mistakes" or inconsistencies that someone found by playing back the videos over and over” no it’s not. for example how were the passengers able to make phone calls when the planes were at 30,000 feet?
- robswc 4y ago
  This is what I found for that: https://www.nps.gov/flni/learn/historyculture/phone-calls-from-flight-93.htm https://www.nps.gov/flni/learn/historyculture/phone-calls-fr... But that's exactly my point. If someone could inside-job-it why would they make sure a simple error and essentially "provide" evidence? I'd read whatever you post about the phone stuff though as I do find it interesting.

by robswc 4y ago

tshaddox 4y ago

> I would think anyone with the means to fake an attack like that would be able to do so without making such trivial mistakes But once you’re agreeing to go along with conspiracy theory epistemology, you can keep looping forever. Anything that you provide as reasons that you believe it’s not a conspiracy could have been placed there by the conspirators to convince you there’s no conspiracy! If you see no evidence of conspiracy, well then clearly that’s what the conspirators wanted! If you see some small mistakes or inconsistencies, and you take that as evidence that it wasn’t a conspiracy (because of course competent conspirators would never allow small mistakes or inconsistencies), well then clearly the conspirators were so competent that they allowed a few small mistakes and inconsistencies to throw you off the scent!

robswc 4y ago
ahah, true. That's why I generally don't give much weight to those types of "evidence." What you're describing is usually what happens when you talk to them.

13113 4y ago

turdit 4y ago

“All the evidence is made up of "mistakes" or inconsistencies that someone found by playing back the videos over and over” no it’s not. for example how were the passengers able to make phone calls when the planes were at 30,000 feet?

robswc 4y ago
This is what I found for that: https://www.nps.gov/flni/learn/historyculture/phone-calls-from-flight-93.htm https://www.nps.gov/flni/learn/historyculture/phone-calls-fr... But that's exactly my point. If someone could inside-job-it why would they make sure a simple error and essentially "provide" evidence? I'd read whatever you post about the phone stuff though as I do find it interesting.