Doesn't it work both ways? I mean, hypothetically, if it was a conspiracy, wouldn't it be the one's who believe everthing the media said about it who are gullible? I mean, it was on ABC news, so it's GOT to be true, right?
2006-07-29 19:28:25 · 8 answers · asked by someguy 3 in News & Events ➔ Other - News & Events
It just seems that those who don't buy the conspiracy theory tend to have the attitude of, wow, you're so dumb for believing that.
2006-07-29 19:31:05 · update #1
They want you to think what they want you to think. As soon as you think otherwise they get worried.That's the way history has been. People standing up for what they believe and revolting against the government!
2006-07-29 19:33:13 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends on how you define a burden of proof. Conspiracy theorists seem crazy (and you must admit, some of them are NUTS) because they make outrageous claims and often have no proof. "Of course there's no proof! It's a government plot!" Thus, many conspiracy theories just amount to a mass of insubstantiated claims.
As for your question about gullibility, I would say that you'd be right to say that everyone is gullible, but while most people believe what they hear based upon what they at least believe to be evidence, conspiracy theorists believe what they hear mostly because they hear it.
2006-07-30 02:36:52 · answer #2 · answered by The Bulletproof Monk 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's not that. Unless someone comes out and directly says "Yes, this is something horrible we did" then people don't want to believe it. People are still refusing to believe the problems the vaccinations in spite of all the children faced with autism and other developmental problems like never before. People still refuse to believe that certain groups are still very blatantly discriminated against. People still refuse to believe many things which are very clear, but not openly discussed. So, as long as the "authorities" continue to deny it, it's easier to wear blinders and not consider the implications of the alternative. It's much harder to look at the evidence and really pay attention to what's out there. It's much easier to deny, defend, deflect and denounce others for asking the questions.
2006-07-30 02:35:23 · answer #3 · answered by jd 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe in conspiracy. All wars have shown be evolved on some kind of conspiracy...I think we have to think whom are those who most won about what happened on 9/11 and the war.
2006-07-30 02:34:07 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
sorry not all conspiracies are true... as a matter of fact most are not. As to the person who typed this.... "I believe in conspiracy. All wars have shown be evolved on some kind of conspiracy...I think we have to think whom are those who most won about what happened on 9/11 and the war. " All I can say is huh?? Can you put this in proper grammatical English please?
2006-07-30 13:15:26 · answer #5 · answered by Rebecca - 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you are going to believe in something, it helps to have proof on your side. Hard proof is sometimes hard to come by especially if much of the proof has been mopped up.
This is a good time to be examining the collapse of the towers, because we are finally starting to get some cold hard evidence, that show us, how those buildings came down. Here is some of the most recent irrefutable evidence available today.
1. We now have eye witness accounts, from people inside of the building, telling of explosions taking place, on different floors, including lower floors, just before the buildings went down. Many of the witnesses, were silenced when the buildings collapsed, but their accounts live on, in just released radio recordings. (I'll try to find them on the Internet for you. I heard the firemens radio conversations, not to long ago.) They went something like this, "What's going on! I'm on the 22nd floor, and I just heard an explosion." "I'm on 72, and I heard one too."
2. Photographs of the buildings, just before it went down, show molten metal flowing out, from the building. Structural steel requires temperatures, well beyond burning jet fuel, to melt. Further, the color of the glowing molten metal, is also representative of high temperatures, beyond that of burning jet fuel. See source below, for detailed information, regarding structural steel melting points etc.
3. A chemical analysis of the molten metal, found at the site, shows traces of a chemical called, "Thermate". Thermate charges are used by professional demolition crews, to cut through steel beams, to demolish buildings. Incidentally, the samples were recovered by a member, of the clean up crew, who kept it as a souvenir memento. Most of the scrap metal, including the pools of molten steel, were recovered by a demolition crew, and discarded. There are though photos, at ground zero, showing beams that have been shearded at a right angle: Slag is shown dripping from the process. Click on photo, in website below; for a close up examination.
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/06/341238.shtml
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2842384983834100001
4. Thermate traces have also been found, inside the bodies, of those exposed to the gases from the molten debris; people such as firemen and clean up crew members.
I found the following video clip, while conducting research. It has a bias slant, but is also very intriguing. Once you see it, you'll never be able to see the 9-ll tragedy the same again: I know I won't.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1519312457137943386&q=loose+change
2006-08-01 20:17:02 · answer #6 · answered by Joe_Pardy 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How come you nuts don't ever give any proof?
2006-07-30 02:57:45 · answer #7 · answered by composertype 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Oh, you aren't dumb....you are just out of your mind.
Wait, yeah.....you are stupid.
2006-07-30 02:32:19 · answer #8 · answered by NateTrain 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋