Husband insists moon landings were faked and 9/11 was a false flag secret operation the Americans did to themselves

[AmberTigerEyes]

I am désolé
My husband, he tell me he really believe there has never been a moon landing and that the 9/11 attacks were faked too.
I was in New York on 9/11
He knows this
He keeps saying things that have been disproven as conspiracy theory myths.
I wonder if I should be calling for a mental crisis unit.

Oh, definitely, they can be. I think the major criteria for whether a conspiracy theory is plausible (not proven, just plausible) would be whether or not it's coherent, actually humanly possible, achieves the goal the government or organisation wants, and is worth bothering with the secrecy.

Most don't - they seem ridiculous, pointless, and more trouble than they're worth. But a few are definitely plausible, or have been proven to be conspiracies. You're right that often they're pretty mundane, though!

There's definitely been attempts to explain it, wanted to keep their diplomatic relationship with the UK, didn't want to look incompetent etc.

I would say maintaining diplomatic relations would be a valid reason. I really couldn't imagine a scenario where they would have said, 'actually our investigation shows MI6 did it'.

In all honesty I find the moon landing slightly suspicious not for the visual etc but for the lack of progress between then and now, I feel as if surely with the world the way it was then that the next step would have been travelling to the moon repeatedly then to Mars and yet everything stalled.

It didn't stall. What is so special about humans going in to space? We can learn a lot from the ISS and the various probes / explorers. Also space is so vast it takes a long time to get to anything.

Voyager 1 set off in 1977, it entered interstellar space in 2012.

Also planets move. The alignment of the outer planets occurred in the late 1970s, they will not align again for several hundred years.

The Mars Rovers have done fabulous job that could not be done easily by humans.

I would still have expected there to be leaks about it in that scenario.

What about the fact that Diana would have survived if she’d been wearing a seatbelt? That was the reason she died. The bodyguard survived the accident, probably for that reason.

There was also the fact that she hadn’t been expected to leave the Ritz until the last minute, there was no way that MI6 could have known about the sudden change of plan. The sudden change of plan was the reason why Henri Paul had been drinking that night.

There was also no motive. Diana wasn’t pregnant (her friend said she’d had her period the week before) and she wasn’t intending to marry Dodi, she was on the rebound from a broken love affair.

I also can’t believe that the Royal Family would have wanted to hurt William and Harry by killing their mother. Diana and Charles had actually been getting on somewhat better at that point in time as well.

I also don’t believe that the Royal Family are that powerful that they could get MI6 to murder someone got their own ends like that, not for national security reasons. (Unless it was connected to Diana’s land mine campaign, which did irritate some powerful people. But the ban happened anyway.)

Personally, I think it’s a case of people not wanting to believe that Diana could die so senselessly in a car accident. But so did Princess Grace of Monaco.

I do, however, think that Epstein was murdered on the orders of Trump.

No. I make lots of errors myself. My point was it is amusing to have someone come on a thread and loftily declare other people incapable of critical thought while referring to an infrastructure as an ‘info structure’. mistake that suggests they have no idea what an infrastructure is.

The fact is we are given a huge amount of information that informs our relationship to the state/governance/global systems. There are many examples of things that were considered conspiracies that have turned out to be true. For example, that the British government was building nuclear bunkers through the Cold War to shelter themselves and those considered worthy of survival - they thought nuclear conflict was more likely than they communicated to us. This is now proven but at the time it was broadly dismissed as a conspiracy.

I don’t personally believe 9/11 was a false flag operation, but I can totally see why others do. It’s the same rationale by which I do believe the recent invasion of Iran is a conspiracy - I think that the US government does abhorrent things in its own interests is clearly established.

There were also very good reasons (e.g. winning the ‘space race’) why the us might have faked the moon landings. It’s not a conspiracy without rational basis.

Yes yes the Soviet Union was watching, so was everyone else good points, convincing. And it did happen for the third time I am not a doubter.
No problem with any of that.

I do have a problem with Chat GPT's contention that it wasn't fake because so many/too many people were involved. The reason so many people were involved is that it was a serious project and did happen. If it had been fake those people would not have been "in the tent" they wouldn't have existed and there would therefore have been far fewer people who had to be relied upon to hush it all up. The AI's argument relies on a fact that exists only because of the fact it was real, if it was fake it would not be able to use the same logic.

I do understand the rationale about the space race. I would be more inclined to believe the moon landing was fake if there hadn’t been subsequent landings following on from it and then an attempt that nearly ended in disaster (Apollo 13). If there hadn’t only been one landing, then I would wonder whether it was fake as well, because of the space race.

For example, that the British government was building nuclear bunkers through the Cold War to shelter themselves and those considered worthy of survival - they thought nuclear conflict was more likely than they communicated to us. This is now proven but at the time it was broadly dismissed as a conspiracy
You what now @Soontobesingles ?
did you live through the Cold War? I did. In Britain. We all knew there were bunkers for government and the right sort of people. We knew who they were. My dad even met someone with clearance and an ID card to prove it. We all thought nuclear war was close to an inevitability for large chunks of the time. And the govenrment sent out Protect and Survive leaflets that told us what to do - I clud8ng what to do with the bodies of our families and friends. It was not downplayed. At all.

@cardibach

Yes, the idea that the UK government was quietly building bunkers on the sly is nonsense. I grew up a few hundred yards from one. Common knowledge what it was, no attempt whatsoever to hide it or obscure its purpose.

"Protect and Survive" was never actually issued publicly. It was made available for purchase, but not sent to homes and organisations as a matter of course. I think the fact we've all since seen the public information film that accompanied the leaflet has invoked a lot of false memories. I certainly never saw a leaflet in person.

I did, yes. And I remember the fear. But I think that we did not realise/get told the extent to which preparations were being made to save some at the expense of others. The bunkers were not, at the time, public knowledge — yes, people knew anyway — but they were a state secret. I remember my grandad talking about them at a family barbecue and other family members laughing because they thought he was being ridiculous. They trusted the government and thought my grandad was a conspiracy theorist (though I don't think they would have used that phrase). My grandad was a builder and knew people who had worked on them. Obviously, anyone with critical thinking abilities knew or could surmise what was going on. My point is that whether there were or were not nuclear bunkers, my grandad realised that 'that lot' were protecting their own interests at the expense of 'us lot' — in the same way people who buy into 9/11 conspiracies are probably wrong about that specific incident, but not wrong that that is precisely the kind of thing the US government would do if it needed to.

I definitely have, because I used to use one as part of a lesson related to books like Z for Zachariah and Children of the Dust. I definitely knew what it was at the time too - though I couldn’t swear to an actual leaflet at the time.

They absolutely weren’t a ‘state secret’. Everyone knew what they were and what they were for. We discussed how it would be better to be dead anyway.
And if they were meant to be secret but every man and his dog and school child knew about them, it rather confirms that governments can’t manage secrecy and conspiracy, doesn’t it?

From wiki -

The Protect and Survive pamphlet was prepared in 1976, and some 2,000 copies were printed and secretly issued to chief executives of local authorities and senior police officers. Its existence having been brought to public attention by the Times (see below), a slightly revised edition was printed in 1980 and made available through Stationery Office bookshops.[13] This peacetime publication of the pamphlet was priced at 50 pence,[33] but it was intended for free distribution to all British households should a crisis period develop.[34] The contents of the pamphlet would also be printed in national newspapers if the risk of nuclear attack increased, with printers' proofs of this version being prepared beforehand

No doubt there will have been copies in circulation post-1980. Still seems to be a lingering myth though that P&S was issued to the general population, and I think that's because of the PI films jogging memories in people who have once seen a pamphlet, and it then they conclude that it must have been issued as a matter of routine. I'm pretty sure P&S also features in the "When the Wind Blows" animated film, so I think that's possible also partially responsible for perpetuating the idea that it was an everyday item at one point.

Because as I said I work nights in emergency services.

sometimes I don’t have time to go and check I just have to post and then go as an emergency comes up which is exactly what happened. So I rushed off not even checking.

I disagree with your posts. But thank you for pointing out my errors in autocorrect

I hope it made you feel better.

Also. As stated I work with suicidal people. But mainly suicidal children.

I think we should always be careful of what is said online as 1 thing you say that’s a put down might change someone’s life forever.

That the bunkers existed wasn't a secret. The BBC made "The War Game" in the mid-60s that included portrayals of local government bunkers.

The exact locations of many of the bunkers were state secrets, in the same way that the exact design of the sonar systems in our ballistic missile submarines is a state secret. So although lots of people knew, they couldn't legally publish that knowledge. But I wouldn't call that a conspiracy.

They were a state secret. Badly kept, yes - and considered an 'open secret' by many who lived near them. But it absolutely was not publicised that these government bunkers were being built, how they would be used and their locations were secret (see e.g. https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/england-secret-nuclear-bunkers or any of the museums for the ones that are now tourist attractions), obviously, other types of bunkers/shelters were not state secrets.

The war game was a fictional film, not a documentary so I am not sure how this is relevant.

It was what we'd call today a docu-drama and so based on factual information, relevant because it shows that information about such bunkers was common knowledge 60 years ago.

I'm not really sure of your point. People obviously knew there were such things as war bunkers and nuclear bunkers, so that they would be part of a fiction about nuclear war. The programme of building these and the complex infrastructure they included, who they would shelter and how, etc., was a state secret. At least some people (In my experience) considered that the building of a provision to 'save' the top brass was implausible and amounted to a conspiracy, even if other people knew the bunkers existed. My point is that this kind of thing is what underpins conspiracy theories and means, whether the particular theory is true or not, that the underlying beliefs substantiating them are valid. 9/11 probably wasn't a conspiracy; the US government will and do kill its own civilians in pursuit of its aims.

I think the point is that a "conspiracy" only exists if there is a deliberate and concerted effort to misinform, obfuscate, and hide or deny fact. Just because a government does not publicly acknowledge the building of bunkers or circulate their whereabouts, it doesn't mean there is in any way a conspiracy to mislead the public.

There are a ton of things government will not formally acknowledge even when directly pressed, this doesn't mean they are actively engaged in a conspiracy.

There's been leaks, but they just get called nutters or they say they are disgruntled. Maybe they are nuts I don't know much about them but whether they are or not they'll be called nutters, and that's just an easy way to put a stop to it no matter how credible they are.

There's evidence to suggest Henri Paul was a low level informant for the French intelligence services.

There's also reports that the American secret service were bugging Dianas phone including the night she died so I'd say some definitely knew about the change of plan.

We don't know whether the seat belt was working or not, yes they said it was, but obviously they would say that if it's a big cover up.

Re the seatbelt malfunctioning, the security services didn’t even know they would be driving again that night!

I don’t know why you’re so determined to believe it was murder? I suppose that even if there were incontrovertible evidence that it was an accident, you would still insist that it wasn’t. Sad really.

It’s not that I don’t think conspiracies happen, I believe that Epstein was murdered as I said. But there was a clear motive there. There wasn’t really, as Diana wasn’t going to marry Dodi and she wasn’t pregnant.

And it’s rather stretching credibility to suggest that the seatbelt wasn’t working, seeing as Dodi wasn’t wearing one either, which suggests that they just didn’t bother putting them on.