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

[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.