Conspiracy Theories Debunked

This entry is part 27 of 34 in the series 2010B

Posted Sept 12, 2010

I think the arguments that there was a moon landing hoax are more convincing than the 911 conspiracies. When you step back and look at the contrary evidence and the whole picture they override the anomalies.

See the 9/11 film HERE

This covers most of these points and I couldn’t see anything problematic because it was three years old. Certain things like eyewitnesses that saw the plane crash in the Pentagon, for instance, are timeless.

I’ve watched many videos and read all the materials I could find on the conspiracy and the arguments supporting it seem very weak to me in comparison to the counter arguments. Most powerful I think is the logic against the conspiracy as a whole as presented in my chapter. One small nuke could have created even more disruption and it could have been blamed on terrorists and been much easier to cover up than a conspiracy with such overwhelming complexity that it defies the imagination.

The same with the moon landings. To fake six moon landings would require a conspiracy a 1000 times more complex than any real proven conspiracy. A real 911 conspiracy would be at least as complicated to pull off as a fake moon landing.

Real conspiracies try to keep it simple and usually concentrate on one small item at a time, like eliminating one guy they do not like. When the largest demolition by explosives in history is a 20 story building they are not likely to tackle two buildings five times that height (with the prep work not being discovered), for instance, with many unknowns. True conspirators go with what they know works and will be under their control.