Are conspiracy theorists wrong about almost everything?

War is a Racket by Smedley Butler.
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.pdf

LS,
Yes. I've long been familiar with good old Smedley. He makes my point, once again. Big complicated conspiracies cannot be kept in the dark. There is always a Smedley who spills the beans. If one researches the archives from Smedley's days, one would see that he wasn't the only saying what he was saying. I myself have said repeatedly here and there that the US government - the CIA since the late '40s - is in the business of protecting US interests, which means big business doing business beyond US shores. Whether or not that is a good thing or a bad thing is a subject for debate. However, what Smedley describes is a far cry from attacking and killing 3,000 US citizens, in the US, and causing much physical and economic destruction. I propose that there is no way - I mean literally impossible - that such a conspiracy could remain in the dark.

My final comment - As far as all of the technical analysis of what caused WTC-7 to fall, etc. - neither you nor I have the technical knowledge - or even the full factual knowledge of the events - to soundly evaluate what various parties are presenting. Some of these parties are either lying or at least arriving at erroneous conclusions. The conspiracy theorists believe it is the government that is lying. I believe it is the conspiracy theorists. I believe that because I saw the airplanes crash (albeit on TV) and many others who testified saw them in person. I know something about how extremely challenging (like not possible) it would be to wire those buildings. The risk of being found out would be massive. I do not believe that military personnel would do that. A few of the neocons? Maybe, but not the guys who would actually do the dirty work. I do not see why it would be necessary given the airplanes. There were much simpler way of getting the US involved in Iraq, Syria, etc. The motive and opportunity for the conspiracy simply isn't there.
 
Last edited:
I myself have said repeatedly here and there that the US government - the CIA since the late '40s - is in the business of protecting US interests, which means big business doing business beyond US shores.

The CIA has never been in the business of helping America. That's not their job.

The CIA is an arm of the international banking cartels, not America.

The 9/11 False Flag is not "in the dark". Billions of people around the world know about it.

I confess to surprise at learning you are not one of them.
 
LS,
Yes. I've long been familiar with good old Smedley. He makes my point, once again. Big complicated conspiracies cannot be kept in the dark. There is always a Smedley who spills the beans. If one researches the archives from Smedley's days, one would see that he wasn't the only saying what he was saying. I myself have said repeatedly here and there that the US government - the CIA since the late '40s - is in the business of protecting US interests, which means big business doing business beyond US shores. Whether or not that is a good thing or a bad thing is a subject for debate. However, what Smedley describes is a far cry from attacking and killing 3,000 US citizens, in the US, and causing much physical and economic destruction. I propose that there is no way - I mean literally impossible - that such a conspiracy could remain in the dark.

My final comment - As far as all of the technical analysis of what caused WTC-7 to fall, etc. - neither you nor I have the technical knowledge - or even the full factual knowledge of the events - to soundly evaluate what various parties are presenting. Some of these parties are either lying or at least arriving at erroneous conclusions. The conspiracy theorists believe it is the government that is lying. I believe it is the conspiracy theorists. I believe that because I saw the airplanes crash (albeit on TV) and many others who testified saw them in person. I know something about how extremely challenging (like not possible) it would be to wire those buildings. The risk of being found out would be massive. I do not believe that military personnel would do that. A few of the neocons? Maybe, but not the guys who would actually do the dirty work. I do not see why it would be necessary given the airplanes. There were much simpler way of getting the US involved in Iraq, Syria, etc. The motive and opportunity for the conspiracy simply isn't there.

You're a good guy Eric, I really appreciate your points of view and contribution and you know we have a lot in common. So I don't wish to argue with you. But you would have to know that if Smedley was alive today he would be called a conspiracy theorist for those views by the establishment and media.

Saying that big conspiracy cannot be kept in the dark is a fallacy of small sample size. As only those that are founded are counted.

A massive conspiracy has just taken place, I think you know what I'm talking about. And we both agree on this. You would also be called a conspiracy theorist for sharing such a view.

The line (that has not been established) between viable conspiracy and crazy conspiracy is the quality of the evidence in all of the competing hypothesis. Like I said, generalizations are generally wrong.
 
Last edited:
Cuts both ways though too, huh? My conspiracy is the one that evaded detection.
So silence generalizes lol. Always with the low hanging fruit and the missing the point entirely with strawman interpretations.

It's the same as saying all secrets are always exposed.
Or that there are no (SAP) black projects being undertaken any where in the world right? Because otherwise we would know about them. Do you see how stupid that is?

I guess not. Don't worry I don't expect you to able to see the logical problem with those statements.
 
Last edited:
Realistically, it would’ve taken teams of engineers weeks to assess the structural integrity of building 7 after the catastrophic collapse of the adjacent massive structures. There is no way to discount massive damage, and strong reasons to suspect it.

Pathetic how the doc glossed over this.
 
Realistically, it would’ve taken teams of engineers weeks to assess the structural integrity of building 7 after the catastrophic collapse of the adjacent massive structures. There is no way to discount massive damage, and strong reasons to suspect it.

Pathetic how the doc glossed over this.

So four years is not enough?
Clearly You haven't read either report. Talk about pathetic.

Even without the initial structural damage caused by debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires having the same characteristics as those experienced on September 11, 2001. - NIST.

NIST discounted it. But by all means give us those reasons. Then explain why the other buildings suffering much greater damage than 7 exterior columns severed did not symmetrically collapse (2.5 secs freefall) into there own footprint.
 
Last edited:
It would be interesting to hear some thoughts on UFO/UAP/UAV's because that was once the epitome of conspiracy.

There was a time when the mention of the subject would be greeted with rolling eyes and smirks. Now it seems to have shifted in the zeitgeist.
In my experience most people are now quite interested and open instead of pointing and laughing.

It is also a area that is riddled with disinfo but at the same time a growing core of seriousness has evolved. Things have changed, why is that? Why did it take some 70 years for perception to shift?
 
Last edited:
It would be interesting to hear some thoughts on UFO/UAP/UAV's because that was once the epitome of conspiracy.

The UFO field is so wadded up with book-sellers, YouTube grifters, genuinely mentally ill people, and actual government disinformation agents it's almost a waste of time to pay any attention to it.

After wasting years and years digging through it, I decided it wasn't worth fooling with after one learns the basics.
 
The UFO field is so wadded up with book-sellers, YouTube grifters, genuinely mentally ill people, and actual government disinformation agents it's almost a waste of time to pay any attention to it.

After wasting years and years digging through it, I decided it wasn't worth fooling with after one learns the basics.

Yet, if one happens to be an experiencer... everything might change (it did for me).
 
Please make a new thread detailing your Experience. I would enjoy reading it.

Here is the thread I made on my N.D.E.

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/today-is-exactly-one-year-since-my-n-d-e.4600/post-149204

Understand, my experience qualifies with regards to the term "experiencer." And because I have no conclusions as to the nature of what I experienced (had to grow out of forming them which wasn't easy), I have found a great deal of acceptance withing the emerging "Exo community" which embraces all things weird, and at the heart of it all - "UFO/ET."

Additionally, my experience rates with regards to "sensationality" on a scale of 1 to 10 at a 1.2 or so.

But my life story from that point on is where things took off and have never been more profound than the last few months (starting November 28, 2020). BUT! I make this last statement from a personal, subjective POV and would expect no one that might hear or read some of the details to feel the same way about all these later experiences since the that "first one" much less feel there's a connection.

And this is one of the main points I have to make with regards to experiencers of what I like to call "The Phenomenon" - and that's not an original term for this and also, some in the Exo community (most in fact) do not like to use that term because of the underlying connotation - that all these experiences are all products of some "single source"... but this then gets into "world view" and all sorts of philosophical and/or metaphysical debate.

Here's the experience I put on my very short and totally unadvertised blog -

http://merlynagain.blogspot.com/2016/04/my-anomalous-experience-when-i-was-six.html
 
So four years is not enough?
Clearly You haven't read either report. Talk about pathetic.

Well we are interested in the extent of the physical damage before 7 collapsed. This impossible to accurately assess after collapse.



NIST discounted it.

Why are you listening to NIST now? (I'm quite prepared for them to be wrong)
 
Well we are interested in the extent of the physical damage before 7 collapsed. This impossible to accurately assess after collapse.

7 outer columns severed. And faired quite well compared to others that did not collapse. Which you are yet to explain. But now it is impossible to know hey? Convenient.

Well it is quite precise what needs to be known in order to bring a building down into it's own footprint. Any miscalculation can topple the building off center. And severing 7 outer columns does not cut it. Which is why NIST does not claim it.

Why are you listening to NIST now? (I'm quite prepared for them to be wrong)
Because you are making claims up. Injecting your opinions that have no support. Saying something different to the official investigation. The very same you would accuse others of doing. So you are just going to have your own independent view, based on nothing but your own speculation. How very interesting.

I am waiting for those reasons.
 
Last edited:
Video of the main towers falling with tonnes of debris smashing into the side of building 7

Eye witness testimony of severe damage.

The fact that it fell with zero evidence of controlled demolition . And this:

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...out-almost-everything.4612/page-4#post-151704

What that's it? You have zero evidence or reasoning. Popular Mechanics did not do the investigation NIST did. No one denies the damage. It just was not sufficient to explain the bizarre collapse, which again is why NIST did not invoke it.

7 columns damaged only to outer columns and no structural damage to inner columns. Other buildings suffering far greater damage and not falling into there own footprint that you can't explain.

They refused to investigate for explosives despite protocols.

Rapid oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting of steel is evidence.
Freefall collapse spanning 8 stories, Total symmetrical collapse is evidence.
Four year study testing all parameters is evidence. Only one set of parameters could match what happened.

Your just doing the same thing. Inserting your own opinion and speculation like some whack job CT nut. Ignoring research that refutes your claims from both sides of the fence.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top