No more conspiracy theories! November 11, 2005 7:12 PM   Subscribe

Are crackpot September 11 conspiracy theories the best of the web? Do we need more posts like these? Twice in one week? I think not.
posted by fandango_matt to Etiquette/Policy at 7:12 PM (23 comments total)

I think fandango_matt is one of them.
posted by Jairus at 7:14 PM on November 11, 2005

To answer both your questions: no, and no.

I let rip with a couple wet farts (I wouldn't call it taking a dump), mentioned it here, and flagged it as a double post. I don't know what else to do. Maybe Matt is having a life somewhere tonight.

I'm gonna go listen to gospel music from the 1920's and read 100 year old newspapers for a research project.
posted by marxchivist at 7:20 PM on November 11, 2005

Y'know, I don't find myself getting behind most MeTa callouts. However, given the irritating nature of the subject matter, I'm willing to fudge it a bit and call this one a double.
posted by afroblanca at 7:24 PM on November 11, 2005

(by "this," of course, I'm referring to the post, not the callout)
posted by afroblanca at 7:25 PM on November 11, 2005

Meh. When the official story asks you to believe that it was random factors that led to every single layer of security individually failing that day, you're asking for conspiracy theories to emerge.
posted by clevershark at 7:31 PM on November 11, 2005

I was more offended by the chuckleheads -- of which you were one, fandango_matt -- pissing with impunity all over the most recent thread.

You and everyone else who did their best to make sure that nothing worthwhile could come of that post (bad as it might have been) need a good swift tap with the banhammer, I'd say.

But then I'm not the boss of you, or of anyone else for that matter.

It may have been a bad link poorly framed, but it could have been an interesting enough discussion to redeem that. Shitting all over the post and the poster inthread drops the chances of that happening closer to zero. Way to go.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:35 PM on November 11, 2005

Aw, I wouldn't criticize fandango_matt too harshly, stavros. His comment was worth it if only for the word "feculent".
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:37 PM on November 11, 2005

True. That is a mighty tasty word.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:39 PM on November 11, 2005

stavros -

You may be right. However, you have to take group dynamics into account in a situation like this. Can a post like this possibly go over well on MeFi? If there was any doubt at all, the poster would only have to look at the previous Crackpot911 thread to see how well things were going there.

I was going to say something in the second thread about how inessential it was, except I couldn't think of anything to say that I hadn't already said in the first thread.
posted by afroblanca at 7:43 PM on November 11, 2005

I am more upset at Marxchivist for using this public forum for flaunting his or her awesome music acquisition! Psst! Wanna trade some MP3 files?
posted by LarryC at 7:48 PM on November 11, 2005

While we're at it, Matt - can you explain why you thought this post to be worthy of remaining on the front page a few days ago? TIA.
posted by Krrrlson at 8:08 PM on November 11, 2005

Matt, why was the white phosphorous thread today deleted when it actually added something new to what was posted several days ago, while this second 9/11 conspiracy post, the second today, stays?
posted by caddis at 8:37 PM on November 11, 2005

Matt, where do babies come from?
posted by Stauf at 8:55 PM on November 11, 2005

Woo hoo, its gone.
posted by marxchivist at 8:56 PM on November 11, 2005

Frankly I don't see that this pulling of so many posts does much to improve the quality of comments in the long run.

If I'm not confident that the thread in which I'm posting will last, I'm not likely to put much work into it, so most likely it'll be a one-liner, a corny joke, a cliche, or maybe an inline image. There's no point spending 10,15,20 minutes writing out a thought-out, cogent argument when the thread might have been deleted as you were writing it up.
posted by clevershark at 9:41 PM on November 11, 2005

I luff conthspirathy theerees.
posted by IronLizard at 10:09 PM on November 11, 2005

I don't know if my comment was thought-out and cogent, but it certainly took me a while to put it together. A little bit frustrating to have it deleted on the next refresh. Oh well.

I guess it's a trade-off between quality of the comments and quality of the front page.
posted by event at 10:12 PM on November 11, 2005

i'd be interested in hearing a conspiracy theory as to who shorted all that airline stock right before 9/11 ... as well as who was helping bin laden out with cash and whatever else he needed

that would be worth an fpp ... this hogwash isn't
posted by pyramid termite at 10:50 PM on November 11, 2005

The entire Laden family is filthy stinking rich oil barons from Arabia. Airline stocks have been bad ju ju for a while, they've needed federal bailout cash regularly, much like the railroads. The stocks may have been sold short for quite some time, then covered when they plummeted after the attacks.
posted by IronLizard at 11:12 PM on November 11, 2005

Shorting stock is as common as dirt in the Trade. Please shut up about it. Just because it's the first time you've heard of the practice of shorting stock, it is not an indicacation that it is unusual. Besides, those people weren't that smart. Nor shall they ever be.

*snaps fingers, waves hands*
posted by Mr T at 11:38 PM on November 11, 2005

I'm gonna go listen to gospel music from the 1920's

Hee - I'm listening to the second disc at this very moment! (A guilty secret: I always have a wee sniff of the cedarwood box and the cotton inside when I get those CDs out, like some sort of gospel pervert. In my defence, it's not often you get compilation albums that smell lovely.)

Um, yeah, and conspiracy theory posts aren't that great.
posted by jack_mo at 2:59 AM on November 12, 2005

Besides, those people weren't that smart. Nor shall they ever be.

really? ... how many of them have we caught?

there's conspiracy theories and then there's conspiracy theories ... there was an actual conspiracy to destroy the wtc ... we know who some of the participants were, but not who all of them were ... i'm not about to suggest anything as outlandish and paranoid as to say it was the u s government or the israelis or the lizard people (or the iraqis)

what i will say is that we don't know the identities of everyone involved or how they put it together ... and there are legitimate questions associated with that

maybe the two of you should just email your answers to the authorities so they can stop investigating these questions, seeing as you know the answers
posted by pyramid termite at 6:29 AM on November 12, 2005

Exactly, pyramid.

The most outlandish "conspiracy theories" have come straight from the mouths of US political office holders.

Despite repeated debunkings, the Bush admin sticks to its wild-eyed conspiracy theory that Saddam Hussein was in league with "al-quaeda" for the 9/11 attacks.

fandango_matt, that's one of the beautiful things about the web. Big Lies get questioned.
posted by telstar at 11:57 AM on November 12, 2005

« Older Why does a new window open when I flag posts?   |   Reminder: New York City meetup Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments