Why do you call us conspiracy theorists nuts when we reinvestigate things?

Question

Why do you call conspiracy theorists nuts when they reinvestigate things?

its not like you have to do it, you dont even have to believe what we find, so why do you get mad at us?

all we do is look back at some old things to see if the past investigators missed something (cause its always good to do that in some big cases where mis finds can be a problem), every now and then we find something wrong with the original theory, and you act like we stepped on your d*** (no offence).

its insulting to be told to shut up when you find some evidence thats even a tad off from the first and gets laughed at. I mean its like walking up to your friend, saying that yesterday you both actually saw a raccoon not a cat and him saying "your f***ing crazy!".

so what if we think about something different from your "about-to-collapse" theory anyway, its not like you should be bothered by it, and if you are, than why dont you shut up for once

Answer 1

that's how they work . bush's propaganda machine got most people to believe 9-11 was done by Muslims , just as the reichstag fire got most Germans to hate Jews and rallied them to the n**i party . bush uses a lot of the old n**i methods , his grandpa worked with Averil Harriman to finance the German war machine build up  in the 30s. disregard the nay sayers , persevere . 1-20-09 is not to far away .

Answer 2

Because you use half as$ed methods of investigations IE blog sites that have no credibility, quotes taken out of context, give really vague explanations, and you base your theories on questions and never give any answers.

Example

Area 51 has Aliens in it! Why else won't they let us in!?

The Pentagon was hit by a missile! Why else wouldn't there be any parts of the plane!?

Answer 3

Because you're nuts.

Answer 4

It seems that most of the time people who believe in conspiracy theories about things  i.e.  Kennedy Assassination or 9-11 want others to believe what they think.  You obviously don't believe what is shown to be fact, instead you twist tales of how everything has some dark force behind it that has to do with the government.  I think it is interesting sometimes to listen to what you say but some of your conspiracy theorists are nuts because they sometimes don't know when to be quiet and listen to others.  I don't call you "nuts" just confused and delusional.

Answer 5

My main complaint is that these questions are usually phrased as if we are all morons for not seeing what is so clearly seen by the person when in fact there are many ways of seeing the same information.  I am not an idiot or a moron but I often do not agree with the conclusions and am very tired that the "conspiracies" always seem to be generated by the United States as the center of evil in the world.

I certainly could be wrong but, boy I just don't see it that way.  There are clearly many more vicious, threatening nations in the world than the US.  Why would we develop such elaborate hoaxes?  What is the "upside" to those who would have had to have been involved.  Occam's razor usually works in these situations.  The simplest answer is usually right and the simplest answer rarely involves a large scale governmental conspiracy...

Answer 6

Because with all the evidence in the world you will still go back and "re investigate" it until you find some random loophole that MAY prove your crazy idea.  And the cycle continues.

Answer 7

Probably because you are a nut!

Chill!

Answer 8

It's not the reinvestigation of certain areas that remain unclear that makes people call conspiracy theorists "nuts", it's when there is overwhelming and incontrovertible proof that something happened a certain way and they choose to deny the mountains of evidence because one small irrelevant aspect was not explained to their satisfaction and then make wild claims based on that.

---

Don't even try to compare your beliefs to the round/flat earth debate. Those were beliefs, without any facts to support them, just faith.

So when I see dozens of pictures showing clearly identified aircraft parts strewn all over the Pentagon grounds, and someone tells me that it was a missile and there was no wreckage (!), then who is the one basing their conclusions on belief and faith, and who is the one using proof and evidence?

Answer 9

Jack, a well investigated rehash of a event using sound investigational practices is not the problem. It's the absolute failure of logic to a scenario that makes us look at you as a quack. many times people just hurl junk out and create a reason for its existence. Its tantamount to a person forming a supposition that a woman had had an affair simply because the baby has red Hair and all the others were brown, instead of checking the family history and discovering that his great uncle was a red head first. how many people just started jumping on the bandwagon that the towers were blown up by the CIA because they came straight down like buildings demolished in Vegas? they never investigated the structural design of the buildings and the effects of 2000 degrees on the substructure. this is why I and many others that choose to compare logic with what we hear and form our own views.

Answer 10

So, who was that guy on the grassy knoll?

Answer 11

You are right grasshopper. THEY MUST FIND IT DIFFICULT...THOSE WHO HAVE TAKEN AUTHORITY AS THE TRUTH..RATHER THAN TRUTH AS THE AUTHORITY. Look on youtube (zeitgeist) or www.zeitgeist.com. Only watch this if you really want to know the truth.