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.

I agree that hypothetically, if it had been a conspiracy that was covered up and subsequently exposed, the consequences would have been severe. But that doesn't mean that it could have been successfully covered up, given the size and complexity involved.

Two can play the AI game:

Based on analysis of large-scale conspiracies, it is highly improbable that a conspiracy of the magnitude suggested by 9/11 "inside job" theories could have been successfully covered up. While 9/11 conspiracy theories persist, experts and scientific modeling suggest that keeping such a massive secret would have been functionally impossible.
Why a Successful Cover-up Would Be Unlikely:
Sheer Number of Conspirators: A study by Dr. David Robert Grimes on the longevity of conspiracies found that for a conspiracy to last, it must involve a very small number of people. A conspiracy involving thousands of participants (which would be necessary to stage the attacks, plant explosives, manage the media, and handle forensic evidence) would be exposed within years, if not months.
Irrepressible Information Leakage: Large-scale, high-stakes conspiracies are notoriously difficult to maintain because the probability of someone breaking ranks or leaking information increases with the number of people involved.
Scientific and Technical Evidence: Official investigations, including those by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and independent engineering reviews, have rejected theories like controlled demolition, concluding that the structural damage from the plane impacts and subsequent fires caused the collapses.
Open-Source Information: The events were witnessed by millions, recorded by numerous cameras, and investigated by various agencies, making the alteration of all evidence unlikely.
Wikipedia +3
Arguments Often Cited by Conspiracy Theorists:
Proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories argue that a cover-up could have succeeded due to:
A "Stand Down" Order: The theory that the U.S. military was ordered not to intercept the planes.
Controlled Demolitions: The belief that explosives were planted in the buildings.
Government Foreknowledge: Claims that officials knew of the impending attacks and allowed them to happen to justify foreign policy goals.
Wikipedia +4
Why Conspiracy Theories Endure:
Psychological Dissonance: People often struggle to accept that a small, low-tech group (Al-Qaeda) could cause such massive destruction, making a "larger," more organized "insider" plot seem more plausible to some.
The Digital Age: The internet provides an environment where misinformation can spread easily and find a dedicated audience.
BBC +1
Despite the persistence of these theories, all major governmental and independent scientific investigations have found no evidence of a government conspiracy to cause the attacks.

No more AI for my as I'm sure it wrecks everyones heads. And I'm not interested in 'playing a game'.

Yes the consequences would have been very severe, hence why someone in congress etc would be highly unlikely to bring down the house of cards, but you were coming out with comments like 'oh someone would have exposed it', 'half of them were the opposition anyway' and they're 'responsible for their voting constituencies, no one else' as if myself and others are stupid and obviously it would have been exposed if people knew.

https://x.com/JustTheTweets17/status/2043424334262235367

This is an interesting view of the assassination attempt on Donald Trump at Butler.

And don't forget the Australians. There were two TV feeds used, one from Honey Suckle Creek and another via Parkes radio telescope.

There was a third in Spain.

They needed the different stations because of the earth orbit.

as if myself and others are stupid and obviously it would have been exposed if people knew.

This is exactly correct. Congratulations, you've nailed it.

These goons never believe just one conspiracy theory, do they!

Not engaging with you again @kkloo but really? Pots and kettles come to mind.

Maybe don't tag me repeatedly then? 'Oh I'm just going to get my comments in but don't reply' 😂

Pot kettle back means the accuser accuses someone of a fault that they also have themselves. So you're saying both sides are stupid then, which includes yourself 😄

how can we presume anything is true ?

"We’re philosophers. We Think therefore We Am."

“Are” said the luckless paradox manufacturer automatically.
Xeno spun around. “I’ve just about had it up to here with you, Ibid!” he roared. He turned back to Brutha. “We are, therefore we am,” he said confidently. “That’s it."

Small Gods - Terry Pratchett

That depends on whether you think the conspiracy is "Bush Jr directly contacted the terrorists and paid them off in cash himself with no-one else involved" or "the twin towers and building 7 were rigged with explosives and the aircraft that were flown in to them had been emptied of passengers and the passengers all killed, flight 93 was shot down by an F-15 and what hit the Pentagon was a missile/space-laser/hologram" or somewhere in between.

Because if the conspiracy was any more than a few people then no matter what the communication system used, there would be a lot of people sitting around on the 11 September and thinking "Hang on a minute, was that weird job I had over the summer linked to this?"

Good reply. For those saying I watched it on TV so it happened, NO ONE is saying it didn’t happen, you need to read up on false flags, of course it happened, it was just an inside job AKA false flag.

any conspaircy theorist worth their salt so to speak knows better than to presume the president himself directly handled matters

So it's not a tiny conspiracy but a bigger one. The bigger it is, the more likely someone directly involved will spill the beans.

and more than likely there would be covert ops teams on stand by to neatuilse any and all.

even then they would only know small parts of the plan if the planners used espionage cell type systems for the parts etc

Again, if you're a conspiracy theorist that believes the twin towers and building 7 were rigged with explosives there's no getting around the fact that you need lots of people to physically do that. Siloing of information into little cells wouldn't get around the need for teams of people to be installing "nano-thermite" or whatever onto all of the columns in those buildings. The people in those teams would remember. The people delivering it all would remember.

If you expand the conspiracy to include covert ops teams to kill those workers, the families of those workers would notice that their family member died in suspicious circumstances. Are the covert ops teams going to kill them too? And are you then going to get another covert ops team to kill the first covert ops teams?

As with most of these conspiracy theories, once you start digging in to the implications and consequences of the actual claims then it all falls apart. That's why conspiracy theorists tend to prefer throwing vague claims around rather than making specific accusations, and favour "I'm just asking questions" when challenged. They know they can't back up their claims but the feeling that they've got secret knowledge that the sheeple don't makes them feel special.

you make some good points, i guess everyone that wants to be fox mulder needs to believe in something

I think some of it is down to media exposure. It's tempting to think that what you see in a James Bond movie or TV series is a realistic picture of how governments work, without thinking through the practical implications of dispatching "covert action cells" to solve every problem.

There's also been some good research on the psychology of people who are drawn into them.

Why some people are willing to believe conspiracy theories

People can be prone to believe in conspiracy theories due to a combination of personality traits and motivations, including relying strongly on their intuition, feeling a sense of antagonism and superiority toward others, and perceiving threats in their environment, according to research published by the American Psychological Association.

The results of the study paint a nuanced picture of what drives conspiracy theorists, according to lead author Shauna Bowes, a doctoral student in clinical psychology at Emory University.

“Conspiracy theorists are not all likely to be simple-minded, mentally unwell folks—a portrait which is routinely painted in popular culture,” said Bowes. “Instead, many turn to conspiracy theories to fulfill deprived motivational needs and make sense of distress and impairment.”

The researchers also found that people with certain personality traits, such as a sense of antagonism toward others and high levels of paranoia, were more prone to believe conspiracy theories. Those who strongly believed in conspiracy theories were also more likely to be insecure, paranoid, emotionally volatile, impulsive, suspicious, withdrawn, manipulative, egocentric and eccentric.

Exactly, not all likely to be simple minded, mentally unwell folks, I'm not sure if you tried to make out that people who believed them were mentally ill but several times you've put it down to people being stupid.

Also more likely and most likely doesn't mean that everyone or even the majority are like that.

I haven't found any research specifically on people who are so quick to try to shut people down by simply calling them stupid and nutjobs but I'm sure certain personality traits will also be a factor there for some, many of which wouldn't be flattering either.

I don't know whether it is arrogance, or stupidity (or both) but it is concerning how confidently people spout their conspiracy theories as fact despite all the evidence to the contrary. You can see it all over this thread:

Why haven't we been back?
Why no stars in the photos?
Why is the flag waving?
It looks like a junk modelling project

Despite the clear and patient answers to their questions nobody ever comes back with a logical counter-argument or admits they haven't thoroughly researched both sides of the discourse. They just double down and hence there is no reasoning with them and that's where people get frustrated.

But the average reading age of adults in the UK is between 9 and 11 years old. That is primary school level and is depressing in itself but perhaps explains some of the wilder statements!

The 'why haven't we been back' question isn't that wild because the landings were between 1969-1972.

Despite the clear and patient answers to their questions nobody ever comes back with a logical counter-argument or admits they haven't thoroughly researched both sides of the discourse. They just double down and hence there is no reasoning with them and that's where people get frustrated.

That's not how it goes, frustration starts at the mere mention of a conspiracy theory and then the name calling starts within a few posts, anyone with even a basic understanding of social psychology would understand that that is generally completely ineffective in changing minds and is far more likely to strengthen peoples beliefs instead.

The doubling down is also apparent on the other side of the debate even when you point out flaws with their points, particularly re 9/11. Going by some of the points made on this thread I would imagine that some of those people are also in the 9-11 reading category.

Can you point to these flaws in recognising 9/11 was a terrorist attack? I must have missed them.

Can you point to where I said people had flaws in recognizing it as a terrorist attack? 😀

I said flaws with their points, you already know the major flaw I had with your point or do you want to rehash it again?

Belief in whether it was a straight up terrorist attack or whether it was a false flag or that they allowed it to happen are just peoples conclusions, the points people make and debate skills are what I'm discussing.

Which is clearly what I meant. Could you point me to flaws in the argument that it was a straight up terrorist attack which haven’t been logically dealt with already numerous times here and elsewhere. Is that precise enough?
Edit: In case you don’t realise, this is the bit of your post I’m referring to - The doubling down is also apparent on the other side of the debate even when you point out flaws with their points, particularly re 9/11