Three Rules for an Airtight Conspiracy Theory, or: How To Tell A Bullshit Conspiracy Theory

[icarus]

The boyfriend has a coworker who is absolutely certain that the Bush adminstration destroyed the Twin Towers on 9/11 as an excuse to go into Iraq. I keep explaining to wildernessguru why this is idiotic. The trouble with specific conspiracy theories is that people (who hate and distrust Bush, for example) want to believe them so badly, logic starts to fray in the face of their fervor.

I'm not against all conspiracy theories. I believe that JFK was assassinated by more than one shooter. But the JFK assassination theory passes my Three Rules.

Wait. You haven't heard of my Three Rules?

Three Rules for an Airtight Conspiracy Theory, or: How To Tell A Bullshit Conspiracy Theory From One That Makes Sense

Rule One: No cherry-picking the facts.

The conspiracy theory has to take into account all the facts available, even if the theory argues with them. If any inconvenient facts are dismissed out of hand ("oh, of course the government says that"), you have a crackpot theory – do not pass go, do not collect $200. The strength of a good conspiracy theory is in the additional information not covered by the mainstream media not in ignoring well-established facts.

Rule Two: No one is a super-genius (except in James Bond).

The conspiracy theory can't presume the culprit becomes suddenly brilliant and competent when they've proved to be a bumbling idiot in the past and since. The bad guy (or guys) has to be capable of pulling it off. A good conspiracy theory doesn't expect the culprit(s) to act out of character or be any smarter than they are on an average day.

An off-shoot of this is the cast of thousands all acting like super-geniuses rule. The more people that are involved in a conspiracy, the more likely the secret will get out, and the more likely the conspiracy will make mistakes. Ask any general. The bigger the operation, the more problems multiply.

Rule Three: No one has a crystal ball.

The conspiracy theory can't assume that the bad guys can read the future. If the bad guy's motive depends upon a complicated chain of events – "See, first they did X, then Y happened, and then Z, and then N, then after that there was W and then, voila! They got what they wanted" – the theory is a house of cards. Vast numbers of conspiracy theories fail because they project what we know in the present ("this is what happened") onto the past ("so they must have known this would happen"). A good conspiracy theory assumes a measurable and predictable result which could have been known at the time.

This is not to say that all conspiracy theories are wrong. Sometimes, they are out to get you. ;) But let's shoot down the stupid conspiracy theories, shall we?

Comments

[ariadne83]

It was the argument that there wasn't enough debris at the Pentagon for there to have been a *real* crash that made me see red. If that's true, where did it go? Where are all those people who supposedly died?

[jya-bd-cp-ttgb.livejournal.com]

The reason he picked Afghanistan is simple -- he'd never get anyone to believe that Saddam Hussien had anything to do with it, whereas Bin Laden had already gone after the World Trade Center once before. Also, they knew Bin Laden was in seclusion, which would make it that much easier to slander him without anyone screaming and having a hissy fit.

And there was a real crash at the Pentagon, but my own brother was down there pulling survivors out, my cousin repairing the building, and both of them wanting to know where the wings and tailfins went in. The hole in the Pentagon is perfectly circular, and no where on any picture taken are the wings and tailfins shown laying on the ground where they sheered off.

Kerosene == still can't spell today -- doesn't burn hot enough to vaporize the titanium steel combo that planes are made of. It just doesn't. And if it did, there's still the concrete and glass that was undamaged, right next to the hole and the explosion.

One of the men killed in the Pentagon attack, the pilot of the hijacked plane as a matter of fact, was involved in simulations just a few months before the attacks for the exact scenario he died in.

Bushie and his buddies aren't the only superpower in the world that might have an interest in Afghanistan, but Bin Laden was a great scape goat for them.

Though, where does the United States get it's poppy seeds for all it's perfectly legal medicine? I mean, are there poppy farms somewhere in the US? Can I buy one?

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

Your proposed motive fails the crystal ball test: Bush "picks" Afghanistan so that he could scapegoat Bin Laden (so then he can later develop a second theory that would enable him to go into Iraq to... etc., etc.) requires advance knowledge of how the cards would fall.

There is nothing that the US wants in Afghanistan. Not even the poppy fields.

As for what hit the Pentagon, it was clearly a missile, not an aircraft.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

I've gone through the evidence there (and my boyfriend is a military analyst): this is where Loose Change appears to be right. What hit the Pentagon was clearly a missle, not an aircraft.

I just don't see how the conspiracy theorists leap the logical chasm from "missile" to "we did it ourselves!"

I can see why the Pentagon wouldn't want to admit the terrorists got their hands on a missile. Especially if Al Quaida got their paws on one of our own missiles.

There are many military bases in the D.C.-Maryland-Virginia area. I know of at least one military base that was being closed. (Weirdly, the Bush administration has closed more military bases than Clinton.)

Historically, closing military bases often lose track of their inventory as it's being boxed up and shipped around. When the Soviets shut down their military bases in eastern Europe, corrupt arms dealers basically stole everything and sold it on the open market. So... what happens when the US shuts down their military bases? And can you bribe someone to "lose" a missile in the process? I imagine you can.

[ariadne83]

... That's very creepy, and plausible. Thanks for the correction.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

It's a standard practice among Maoist insurgents: make the enemy supply you with their weapons.

The former mujahideen (who are the main trainers and fighting forces of various terrorist organizations) were well-trained in how to use American missles. By us, when we taught them how to use the weapons we supplied them to fight the Soviets in the late 80s.

According to Dangerous Places, as little as seven years ago there were huge stockpiles of American Stinger missiles, etc., for sale -- cheap -- abandoned on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Where do Bin Laden and other terrorists have training grounds/hide-outs? Oh, the Afghanistan-Pakistan border (and Syria).

Whether terrorists bought a missle on the border of Pakistan (and disassembled, smuggled it in, and reassembled it here), or managed to get a missile from the many arms dealers in the US (both legal and illegal, the US being one of the largest arms dealers in the world) there were many means to procure one, and they certainly knew how to use it.

[ariadne83]

My husband also made a good point RE: the missile idea - why complicate a brilliantly simple plot?

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

I've been looking into this whole "it was a missile that hit the Pentagon" theory, and I'm not so convinced any more. There was a group of National Geographic bigwigs on flight 77 that hit the Pentagon. The news reports the day after on September 12, 2001, record that they died.

The "missile theory" doesn't account for the dead. Although I've heard crazy nutjob claims like "there never was a flight 77" and "flight 77 landed and the government killed them." *eyeroll*