Are you actually serious???
Let me elaborate:
Let's play a little word association. I'll say a word, you say the first word that comes to mind Conspiracy... Theory is what most people think of. We've all been conditioned to associate the word theory with the word conspiracy because after all no conspiracy could be true, they're all just theories aren't they.
Well, no. Everything is a conspiracy, what we have are two opposing conspiracies - a group of muslim extremeists conspiring to blow up certain buildings in the US versus the US Government conspiring to blow up buildings in the US. Both are theories, both are theories that center around a conspiracy.
In the phrase 'conspiracy theory' there are two words. The first word is conspiracy the second word is the active word, theory. By Definition a Theory is a supposition, an idea, a concept, a hypothesis.
This is the way the word is commonly used, the way the word is commonly used by laypeople is not neccessarily correct. It is
precisely this kind of mis-use of the word theory that leads to creationists making statements like "Well, evolution is only a theory, right?" Yeah, so is gravity, but you don't see people acting that way when deciding whether to leave their third floor apartment by the door or by the window do you?
Let me give you an example. In theory, if I purchase a raffle ticket, I could win a prize.
This is precisely the abuse I am referring to. It's not a theory that you
might win a prize, it's a 'fact'. If the draw is random, every ticket has an equal opportunity to win a prize. That's not to say that it's a gauranteed outcome - if there are three million combinations of numbers available for your raffle ticket, and only one of those produces a price, then there is one outcome that leads to a prize and 2,999,999 that will not.
Now as long as I don't purchase a raffle ticket my win is theoretical
What win? If you never by a ticket you never have a chance of winning. What you have here, at best, is hypothetical winnings not theoretical winnings. And that's the point, when most people say "Theoretically speaking" what they actually mean is "Hypothetically speaking".
But once you purchase a lottery ticket that win is no longer a theory it is a possibility
Swap theory for hypothesis and this statement is technically correct. Why? The initial hypothesis was:
IF I buy a lottery ticket
THEN I have an chance of winning, you've fulfilled the conditions of the initial hypothesis.
The more raffle tickets you purchase, the more possible and eventually probable the win becomes.
Equal parts accurate and hooey. While it's true that purchasing additional tickets increases your likelyhood of winning, it's hooey that it increases the possibility of you winning. The possibility of you winning is controlled by whether or not you have purchased a ticket. If you have no tickets, then it is not possible for you to win, if you have a ticket it is possible for you to win, and if you have more than one ticket it becomes increasingly probable for you to win. You have met the criteria for your possible winnings to become probable winnings when you purchase your first ticket. Once you purchase that first ticket you increase the probability but not the possibility.
Such is the case with a conspiracy theory. As long as there is no evidence it is a conspiracy theory.
Well, no, as long as there is no evidence it is an untested alternative hypothesis.
But once you have a piece of evidence, no matter how circumstantial or flimsy it may be. It becomes a possibility.
Any hypothesis that is consistent with the evidence is
possible. The collection of evidence is how we test an otherwise untested hypothesis.
And the more evidence that is gathered, the more possible, and eventually possible the conspiracy is.
Well, no, not really, the stronger the evidence, the stronger the hypothesis. But that doesn't make it more possible or probable.
You will be looking at evidence inside this documentary and it will be up to you to decide whether it is indeed a conspiracy theory, or indeed a conspiracy.
Again, no, not really. The 'main stream hypothesis' is already that it is a conspiracy, the point of difference between it and the alternative hypotheses (including the no plane hypothesis) is who executed the conspiracy.
ANY hypothesis dealing with the events of 9/11 is automatically a conspiracy because of the nature of the events. The question being asked is who executed the hypothesis, was it a group of muslim religious extremists? Or was it the American government?
). There is tons of other evidence, you know the plane that doesn't exist anymore, the missing passengers the missing crew - stuff like that. I mean for crissake!?!
