Conspiracy theories

[RoseMorninStar]

At the beginning of the 'dump' I stated: Merriam-Webster dictionary. I also comment at the end that there were extensive references, etc.. if anyone wanted those. I posted the quote because I often find when an involved discussion is at hand it helps all participants to have a clear and defined reference point from a neutral source. I had not, however, expected the entry to be so long when I originally posted the quote, which is continued in my second post.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I will give an edxample of a widely ridiculed conspiracy. An official narrative is given for an event that required a completely new physical phenomenon to make the official narrative coherent. Subsequently, a multiple year study of the event concludes that the official narrative is false, and provides the mechanism for the event's characteristics.

Which is the conspiracy theory, the challenged official theory, or the theory that matches events?

Without giving specifics of what you are referring to, this example is meaningless.

[Alatar]

If this is gonna be about 9/11 pancake bullshit I give up.

[Beorhtnoth]

If this is gonna be about 9/11 pancake bullshit I give up.

I, too, would give up trying to believe the 9/11 pancake bullshit. Nobody else does, now even the "official version" discounts it.

Do you not think it interesting that the two theories proffered within days of the event remain the only two theories entertained by those subscribing to an official narrative? Those are the "pancake" and "piledriver" theories.

It is somewhat frustrating that my intent for this discussion was focus on the use of the label "conspiracy theory", and how it is problematic because it is a loaded term. Specific "conspiracy theories", irrespective of their truthfulness, are routinely dismissed simply because they are "conspiracy theories". I find that approach troubling.

Alas, as Voronwë highlighted, my seeking to keep discussion at least partially in the abstract leaves me open to charges of being "meaningless". On the other hand, Alatar demonstrates how specific subjects are an immediate "turn off". I wonder why that is. Repeated media reinforcement that a subject is spurious?

I am no expert. I am educated to undergraduate degree level in Physics, but I am not a structural engineer. However, it doesn't require a structural engineer to recognise the physical anomalies of events on September 11th, 2001.

[Alatar]

Are you seriously suggesting that 9/11 was an inside job. Because that's pretty much the textbook definition of Conspiracy Theorist. You might as well be denying the Moon Landings.

[Beorhtnoth]

Are you seriously suggesting that 9/11 was an inside job. Because that's pretty much the textbook definition of Conspiracy Theorist. You might as well be denying the Moon Landings.

I am seriously suggesting that forensic examinations of events are discouraged by attitudes such as you appear to exhibit. Nobody mentioned "Inside Job", and if they had, why is that an automatic red flag? Are "Inside Jobs" impossible?

Are you seriously suggesting that raising informed objections to received wisdom is akin to believing in a Flat Earth?

Because that is quite a leap, and does support my contention that being labelled a "conspiracy theory" automatically invokes ridicule. Why is that? Why do you think you are the font of all truth?*

(*Not meaning you particularly, but figuratively inclusive)

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I'm going to lock this thread before it gets any further out of hand.