Q's Conspiracy Round Up

[FunLovingJerk]

Hi lying alt or shill of lying Lovelynice.

Your effect is nil.

Carry on with your noise.

You are the boy in the bubble

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l126/thally999/tobiasinthebubble.jpg

The world goes on

It passes you by

You have names for things, but they are not their true names

You call people names, but you can't touch them or know them

Carry on with your noise, we can't hear you

 

[shoulderblade]

I think "conspiracy" implies intent. If a small group is working openly to achieve some end, and are not noticed by the larger society, I would not consider them conspirators.

But if they achieve success it becomes a different story. Once power becomes an issue noticed is more than a factor, more of a threat. ??

 

[BlackShanglan]

A conspiracy is made up of malcontents, each with the power, by disclosure, to be contented.

Niccolo Machiavelli

A conspiracy theory is made up of malcontents, each with the power, by insisting that s/he knows what others do not, to be contented.

 

[RosesNLilac]

A conspiracy theory is made up of malcontents, each with the power, by insisting that s/he knows what others do not, to be contented.

I didn't know that George W Bush was a malcontent. That explains the official conspiracy theory. You've nailed it.

 

[Queersetti]

But if they achieve success it becomes a different story. Once power becomes an issue noticed is more than a factor, more of a threat. ??

It's an interesting semantic point. If 2 guys meet in room and say "Let's make plans to take over the government" they are a conspiracy, if 20,000 meet in a convention hall with the TV cameras on them and say the same thing, they are a political party. I don't know where, precisely, the line should be drawn.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I always feel odd talking about the JFK assassination, because I feel that to question the official story somehow associates me with these... people.

That's the worst of it. They give actual conspiracies a bad name.

I'm fascinated by an obscure, unprovable, and salacious conspiracy/cover-up theory. Merle Holland (Oscar Wilde's grandson) lays it out in his account of Wilde's trial:

(1) The Marquess of Queensbury, whose younger son (Lord Alfred Douglas) egged Oscar Wilde into suing the marquess for libel, had an older son, the Viscount Drumlanrig.

(2) Drumlanrig died at twenty-seven in what was reported as a hunting accident.

(3) Some suspect that Drumlanrig committed suicide under the threat of exposure of an affair he had with the Foreign Secretary, Lord Rosebery.

(4) At the time of Wilde's trial, Lord Rosebery had moved on - to become prime minister.

(5) Wilde's prosecution against Queensbury collapsed. Queensbury had said Wilde was "posing as a sodomite," and he offered a defense of "It's true." Wilde dropped the suit just as Queensbury's counsel was about to start putting rent boys on the stand.

(6) Wilde was arrested that night for indecent acts with a male person. His lawyer pleaded with the prosecutor to drop the charges, but the prosecutor noted that Wilde's own counsel had already stated that the names of "certain high personages" appeared in letters the Marquess had written. If the prosecution was dropped, he said, the public might feel that that high personage was covering something up.

(7) Holland suggests that the opposite may have happened. Perhaps Queensbury blackmailed Prime Minister Rosebery to ensure a tenacious and destructive prosecution of Wilde.

I'm not convinced that the theory is necessary in the sense of being the only thing that could explain the prosecution against Wilde, but it's certainly interesting. It's also a bit stunning; two brothers take down the greatest artistic genius of the age and very nearly do for the prime minister as well. Certainly one message comes through clearly there: stay the hell away from the Marquess of Queensbury's sons.

 

[shoulderblade]

It's an interesting semantic point. If 2 guys meet in room and say "Let's make plans to take over the government" they are a conspiracy, if 20,000 meet in a convention hall with the TV cameras on them and say the same thing, they are a political party. I don't know where, precisely, the line should be drawn.

Maybe it is a semantic point. The concept of threat to authority would seem, to me, to enter in somewhere. Or possibly every case must be judged on its own merit.

 

[Sean]

entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

William of Ockham.

 

[Lovelynice]

This does not appear well advertised.

???

Meaning that some people would prefer to avoid mentioning that the first explosions triggering the collapses of the Twin Towers happened BELOW the plane impact areas? No, it does look as if some don't like others being reminded of this fact.

YES

THE COLLAPSES STARTED BELOW THE PLANE IMPACT POINTS.


FIRST BIG EXPLOSION WAS BELOW THE PLANE IMPACT AREA# NYC firefighter: “It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. . . [W]e originally had thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.”


Stephen Gregory , Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.) flashes, EXPLOSIONS below the plane impact area p 14

I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.

Q. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?
A. No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy,

(Strangely, he talks about West Street, where he saw airplane parts, but nobody, and was wondering, no firefighters or civilians, that they probably must be on the Promenade side)then he says:

page 20 Q. Clearly not building material?
A. No. The building material was sort of gray and you could see it, you know, how it differed from the plane. I was listening to the tape this morning of the people calling up and they were describing the plane that hit the building. Actually, so many people saw it. They actually described the plane as it came in. They said it was a military-type plane and it was green and it was this. I mean, I never saw the color of the plane.


FIREFIGHTER WILLIAM REYNOLDS
WTC2- large EXPLOSION below plane impact area before the collapse

After a while, I was distracted by a large explosion from the south tower and it seemed like fire was shooting out a couple of hundred feet in each direction, then all of a sudden the top of the tower started coming down in a pancake. I remember my jaw dropping and just staring at it and Richard Banaciski, one of the firemen that was there, yelled "Run" and I turned and I started running into the parking garage of the Financial Center.

Q. Bill, just one question. The fire that you saw, where was the fire? Like up at the upper levels where it started collapsing?

A. It appeared somewhere below that. Maybe twenty floors below the impact area of the plane. I saw it as fire and when I looked at it on television afterwards, it doesn't appear to show the fire. It shows a rush of smoke coming out below the area of the plane impact.

The reason why I think the cameras didn't get that image is because they were a far distance away and maybe I saw the bottom side where the plane was and the smoke was up above it.


Edward Cachia FDNY WTC2 EXPLOSIONS before collapse
explosion started collapse BELOW the plane impact area

As my officer and I were looking at the south tower, it just gave. It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.







.

 

[Byron In Exile]

No, of course I don't think that. I don't know why you'd think I implied anything of the sort.

I apologize then if I implied you believed that. It was a question with an implied answer for the sake of argument.

 

[Byron In Exile]

In the correct English definition of the word, they would still be conspirators.

They would be. That is true.

 

[Byron In Exile]

You are the boy in the bubble

picture

The world goes on

It passes you by

You have names for things, but they are not their true names

You call people names, but you can't touch them or know them

Carry on with your noise, we can't hear you

Um, whatever.

Good luck on your journey.

 

[Queersetti]

I apologize then if I implied you believed that. It was a question with an implied answer for the sake of argument.

No problem. It's easy to get mixed up here in the land of the loons.

 

[Faneros]

You are the boy in the bubble



The world goes on

It passes you by

You have names for things, but they are not their true names

You call people names, but you can't touch them or know them

Carry on with your noise, we can't hear you

thats our Byron

 

[Aliea]

I gave up on this thread after the first 10 or so posts. They were making my head hurt.

 

[Queersetti]

I gave up on this thread after the first 10 or so posts. They were making my head hurt.

The Illuminati want your head to hurt, that's how they get away with things.

 

[Byron In Exile]

thats our Byron

Finally exposed as a shill.

Might as well go with it.

 

[Aliea]

The Illuminati want your head to hurt, that's how they get away with things.

I was going to blame the liberal media, but that's too easy these days.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Finally exposed as a shill.

Might as well go with it.

I can't help thinking you'd be a more effective shill with some of those very persuasive huge red letters for the main words in your arguments.

 

[Byron In Exile]

I can't help thinking you'd be a more effective shill with some of those very persuasive huge red letters for the main words in your arguments.

I did consider using red.

But I thought it best to conserve ammunition.

 

[Byron In Exile]

I don't get exactly what you are saying here. That conspiracy theorists don't care about objective truth? Or that it's a moot point since everyone agrees that the truth is whatever you make it? I find the strong form of this argument to be self-refuting and the weak form indistinguishable from the idea that "it's a crazy confusion out there".

I'm just waiting for whatever the WTC version of "King Kill 33" is going to be.

That makes no sense at all.

 

[Byron In Exile]

Good point I think. There is always a factor of perspective. Once a movement becomes dominant it is no longer a conspiracy.

You haven't made one single coherent statement ever.

 

[Byron In Exile]

I don't know. You would think we were discussing religious beliefs, not the facts involved in a crime.

Exactly.

We might as well be talking about fossils to a congregation of Baptists.

 

[Hamletmaschine]

I don't get exactly what you are saying here. That conspiracy theorists don't care about objective truth? Or that it's a moot point since everyone agrees that the truth is whatever you make it? I find the strong form of this argument to be self-refuting and the weak form indistinguishable from the idea that "it's a crazy confusion out there".

No, I suspect many of the conspiracy theorists do care about “objective truth,” or at least they think they do. But that’s a less interesting element of it than the blissed-out nature of the enterprise, the sheer ecstasy of communication, as Baudrillard might say. Just look at the fevered way in which people here post about such things, as well as all the gossip, rumors, dramas, and ‘debates’ that occur here at Lit (and this is just one small corner of the global media circus, after all).

Indeed, this whole discussion board is no different from a conspiracy theory in that sense, and it is another manifestation of the same phenomenon: what people say here and its putative relation to something we might call ‘truth’ is wholly unimportant. What matters is being a good host for the viral information and passing it along. To ask whether conspiracy theories are true or not is akin to asking whether the flu virus is true or not.

 

[TurdFergeson]

To ask whether conspiracy theories are true or not is akin to asking whether the flu virus is true or not.

Or perhaps if the flu vaccine really works or is actually harmful?