World's Biggest Comspiracy Theories That Turned Out To Be True

There is actually another video of Chomsky talking about 9/11 theories that has a thought that I wish was included in the WTC7 video (please excuse the arrogant "debunks" in the video title).

Essentially he brings up the fact that patterns can be found in chaos. There were suspicious-looking things about the Boston Bombings (there were terror drills being run in the area) or Sandy Hook (happened just as Obama was talking about gun control), or any conspiracy theory really. If you look back there is bound to be peculiar things that can be arranged into a pattern.

So it seems to me that the two options a person has is to have a higher standard of evidence and--not connect such dots--or to believe every conspiracy theory that meets this lower standard of evidence.

There was also a terror drill in london on the day of their 'attack'. Seems like a way of doing business, if you could call that a pattern, sure it's a pattern and as such I'm sure a regular police investigation wouldn't rule out this line of inquiry. So coming from chomsky the patterns in the chaos argument is fudd. He might as well start talking about how Jesus is his lord and saviour, this is how connected his argument is to the topic at hand. It's a cute sciency sounding critique to help the anti-truth crowd.

  On 11/27/2013 at 9:51 AM, delet... said:

 

-sie- .. They have had things peer reviewed. The problem is not with the truthers, it's with the cognitive bias, establishment worshipping, always bull-headed, stubborn anti-truthers.

 

 

 

Okay, if that's true I'm interested to see what the peer-review looks like.

BTW this is the same claim made by creationists about evolution-believing scientists: The biased, dogmatic scientific community is trying to protect the status quo.

  On 11/27/2013 at 10:10 AM, delet... said:

There was also a terror drill in london on the day of their 'attack'. Seems like a way of doing business, if you could call that a pattern, sure it's a pattern and as such I'm sure a regular police investigation wouldn't rule out this line of inquiry. So coming from chomsky the patterns in the chaos argument is fudd. He might as well start talking about how Jesus is his lord and saviour, this is how connected his argument is to the topic at hand. It's a cute sciency sounding critique to help the anti-truth crowd.

I'm talking about "evidence" cited by people who think the Boston Bombings were some conspiracy. Frivolous dot-connecting, much like citing recent insurance policies.

look at JFK

when you connect the dots in one way you get the Federal Reserve

when you connect the dots another way you get Castro (or Castro-sympathizers)

or another way and you get the Mafia

another way you get LBJ

another way you get the CIA

Why can't you see that the standard of evidence you're using is not a good one?

Chomsky's point about patterns in chaos is incredibly valid

  On 11/27/2013 at 10:16 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 11/27/2013 at 9:51 AM, delet... said:

 

-sie- .. They have had things peer reviewed. The problem is not with the truthers, it's with the cognitive bias, establishment worshipping, always bull-headed, stubborn anti-truthers.

 

 

 

 

Okay, if that's true I'm interested to see what the peer-review looks like.

 

hah, you quote my post but then omit the link which then links to the peer reviewed articles. You did your own lying by omission, all by yourself. It's like you either don't want to know or your purpose is to troll any topic on reality based political discussion. kamaan limp.

  On 11/27/2013 at 9:51 AM, delet... said:

 

  On 11/27/2013 at 9:34 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 11/27/2013 at 9:26 AM, delet... said:

I like how noam states this

 

 

 

  Quote

“There happen to be a lot of people around who spend an hour on the internet and think they know a lot physics, but it doesn’t work like that,” he added, taking a jab at conspiracy theorists. “There’s a reason there are graduate schools in these departments.”

 

Architects and engineers for 9/11 truth are more than qualified to comment, hence the immense value of that group in combating official propaganda on 9/11. Chomsky is proving that he either has skin in the game, or because he can't read declassified documents on the matter from official sources, he is unable to see the forest for the clear felled, processed into paper and written up as several official sources that was probably shredded and shipped to china to be used as compost for the their campaign to stabilize their desert areas with, trees.

 

edit: Oh yeah, and what a giant douche.

 

I read a youtube comment under that video that said something to the effect of "obviously the NSA has the dirt on Chomsky since he's so scared to speak out."

 

Chomsky also made the very pertinent point that those architects and engineers should do what scientists do when they think they've discovered something, and that is to publish and subject their findings to peer review. That is how good science works.

 

 

-sie- .. They have had things peer reviewed. The problem is not with the truthers, it's with the cognitive bias, establishment worshipping, always bull-headed, stubborn anti-truthers.

 

It took me a few seconds on google to find a chomsky rebuttal, if not the most eloquent, but surely link filled. Chomsky Manufactures 911 Consent

 

  On 11/27/2013 at 10:24 AM, delet... said:

 

  On 11/27/2013 at 10:16 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 11/27/2013 at 9:51 AM, delet... said:

 

-sie- .. They have had things peer reviewed. The problem is not with the truthers, it's with the cognitive bias, establishment worshipping, always bull-headed, stubborn anti-truthers.

 

 

 

 

Okay, if that's true I'm interested to see what the peer-review looks like.

 

 

hah, you quote my post but then omit the link which then links to the peer reviewed articles. You did your own lying by omission, all by yourself. It's like you either don't want to know or your purpose is to troll any topic on reality based political discussion. kamaan limp.

 

 

  On 11/27/2013 at 9:51 AM, delet... said:

 

  On 11/27/2013 at 9:34 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 11/27/2013 at 9:26 AM, delet... said:

I like how noam states this

 

 

 

  Quote

“There happen to be a lot of people around who spend an hour on the internet and think they know a lot physics, but it doesn’t work like that,” he added, taking a jab at conspiracy theorists. “There’s a reason there are graduate schools in these departments.”

 

Architects and engineers for 9/11 truth are more than qualified to comment, hence the immense value of that group in combating official propaganda on 9/11. Chomsky is proving that he either has skin in the game, or because he can't read declassified documents on the matter from official sources, he is unable to see the forest for the clear felled, processed into paper and written up as several official sources that was probably shredded and shipped to china to be used as compost for the their campaign to stabilize their desert areas with, trees.

 

edit: Oh yeah, and what a giant douche.

 

I read a youtube comment under that video that said something to the effect of "obviously the NSA has the dirt on Chomsky since he's so scared to speak out."

 

Chomsky also made the very pertinent point that those architects and engineers should do what scientists do when they think they've discovered something, and that is to publish and subject their findings to peer review. That is how good science works.

 

 

-sie- .. They have had things peer reviewed. The problem is not with the truthers, it's with the cognitive bias, establishment worshipping, always bull-headed, stubborn anti-truthers.

 

It took me a few seconds on google to find a chomsky rebuttal, if not the most eloquent, but surely link filled. Chomsky Manufactures 911 Consent

 

 

YOU DIDN"T LINK TO ANY PEER-REVIEWED PAPERS. DON'T ACCUSE ME OF "NOT WANTING TO KNOW" OR BEING A TROLL.

EDIT: I'M TALKING ABOUT PAPERS REVIEWED BY THE SCIENCE COMMUNITY...WHICH IS HOW GOOD SCIENCE IS DONE

When creationists and Intelligent Design proponents realized they couldn't get published in any reputable science journals, they started their own joarnals. You linked me to the 9/11 version of that. Please research the concept of "peer-review."

Anytime a scientist discovers something experimentally, they submit to peer-review and then all these other scientists see if they get the same results.

When that dude solved Fermat's Last Theorem, he submitted to peer-review so others could check his work and make sure his work was sound. Turns out there was a mistake. Peer-review is the reason we don't have an incorrect proof for Fermat's Last Theorem.

Peer-review is the reason we don't believe in cold fusion.

Peer-review is why we don't believe bad things. It is a filter that keeps bad science out of our scientific understanding of the world.

Now, the Truther science might be completely sound. I (like Chomsky) don't know one way or the other. Write a paper and get it peer-reviewed by the scientific community and we'll see what happens.

it's just fucking unbelievable that this is still going on watmm for more than 10 years and the modus operandi is still the same "u.s. government is evil therefore it blew up the towers, now lets find bits of pieces of evidence (that could be explained in countless of ways) and forcefully connect them into a coherent narrative". i mean you could at least read some stuff about scientific method and maybe some sociology of science in those 10 years...

what i never never see and don't understand why we don't see it is the opposing evidence that shows us how these 19 terrorists took over 4 planes and flew the fuckers. i mean they flew a fucking plane into the pentagon! yes the pentagon the headquarters of the United States Department of Defense. i'd want my money back if i was paying towards that hahha

Steve Guttenberg is behind it all.

also

  On 11/27/2013 at 4:45 PM, olo said:

Steve Guttenberg is behind it all.

 

also

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

is he the face of al-qaeda?

  On 11/27/2013 at 4:53 PM, miim said:

 

  On 11/27/2013 at 4:45 PM, olo said:

Steve Guttenberg is behind it all.

 

also

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

is he the face of al-qaeda?

 

face & obviously the chest of al-queda

  On 11/27/2013 at 2:37 PM, eugene said:

it's just fucking unbelievable that this is still going on watmm for more than 10 years and the modus operandi is still the same "u.s. government is evil therefore it blew up the towers, now lets find bits of pieces of evidence (that could be explained in countless of ways) and forcefully connect them into a coherent narrative". i mean you could at least read some stuff about scientific method and maybe some sociology of science in those 10 years...

also interesting to note is that the thread starter has long been banned.

Hm. A giant, multi-national, corporate-led conspiracy (def: "1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act. 2. A group of conspirators.) is going on right now - no one seems to care - and here we are debating decade old talking points, brought up by the guy who told me to "Fuck off" with the actual dubious anti-US talk.

LOL

my talking points? really? i love your wild imagination.

X

I don't think I said they were -your- talking points, just that you brought up WTC7. Which you did. Wild imagination indeed.

the wtc7 thing was hardly the point, innit.

K, got anything to say about the TPP as conspiracy?

Meh

Cheap promotion of your own talking points. Nice try.

thread title comspiracy deepens

  On 11/27/2013 at 10:19 AM, LimpyLoo said:

look at JFK

 

when you connect the dots in one way you get the Federal Reserve

 

when you connect the dots another way you get Castro (or Castro-sympathizers)

 

or another way and you get the Mafia

 

another way you get LBJ

 

another way you get the CIA

 

 

 

Why can't you see that the standard of evidence you're using is not a good one?

 

Chomsky's point about patterns in chaos is incredibly valid

he does make valid points, but at the same time there is a middle ground. Speculation about who was actually behind killing JFK besides Oswald is not the same thing as poking holes in the absolutely horrible investigation that was the Warren Commission. Just like questioning the 9/11 official story is not the same thing as saying Bush did it.

I'm a fan of stuff like historycommons.org which basically has the most comprehensive database and timeline about the events leading up to 9/11 and after including probably the most well sourced background history on Al qaeda. These types of resources allow you to follow your own threads of research and don't speculate on what exactly happened. It's more of a way to just see how many contradictions there are in the official 9/11 story. You don't need to jump to the conclusion that the US government was behind it, but it clearly lays out (without having to state) that a large portion of the things we were told happened on 9/11 don't stand up to fact.

Chomsky in his own writings is also guilty of the same mentality he's criticizing. Many of this theories are formed based on not just his excellent historical analysis but also his incredibly good intuition on how to read between the lines. Which if you boil it down is a similar method to what a lot of 'conspiracy' type writers use. At some point you have to use your own critical thinking ability to connect the dots, and Chomsky has made an entire career of doing that

It's interesting too that Chomsky has stated repeatedly something that may seem obvious to him, but isn't to the general public. He doesn't believe the war in Afghanistan was justified in part because of the lack of proof connecting them in any way to 9/11. This is a full on contradiction of the 9/11 official story. On this issue though he's contradicted himself several times. I can't find the exact quote right now but in his first book about 9/11 he said something like "even though we rushed to judgement to find the culprits with no proper investigation, ultimately it turns out the US governments assessments on who was behind the attacks are more or less correct". The last few years though he's changed his tune and said at least twice that there was also no proof that Al-Qaeda was behind the attack. Once in an interview with my sister, another time on BBC.

lol, as if chompsky has any credibility outside his particular circle.

it just seems like there's some alternative universe with alternative understanding of social sciences and scientific method where his books are considered "excellent historical analysis".

isn't there that famous bit in power of nightmare where he says the group didn't call them selves al-qaeda before the attack only after the attacks with the media calling them that? and isn't that there is no such thing as a single a al-qaeda but lots of small units which aren't necessarily connected?

  On 11/28/2013 at 1:15 PM, eugene said:

lol, as if chompsky has any credibility outside his particular circle.

it just seems like there's some alternative universe with alternative understanding of social sciences and scientific method where his books are considered "excellent historical analysis".

I don't understand why you take issue with him or his historical analysis. It's one of those things where it feels like i must live on a different planet than his detractors because I don't understand the criticism one bit.