When does a "conspiracy theory" stop being one?

[EGarrett]

No one considers the Tuskegee Experiment, Lee Harvey Oswald shooting the president, or Watergate to be "Conspiracy Theories"...because they're supported. So where is the "line-drawn" between actual history, plots and plans and "conspiracy theories?"

(I know my own answer, but I'm curious what the Conspiracy Theorists will say)

[CHF]

So where is the "line-drawn" between actual history, plots and plans and "conspiracy theories?"

When facts and experts start to support the "conspiracy."

Still waiting for that to happen in the case of the twoofers.

[jhunter1163]

Experts can be wrong. I'd say when the preponderance of the evidence supports the conspiracy theory.

Again, nowhere close to what the Twoofers claim.

[pagan]

No one considers the Tuskegee Experiment, Lee Harvey Oswald shooting the president, or Watergate to be "Conspiracy Theories"...because they're supported. So where is the "line-drawn" between actual history, plots and plans and "conspiracy theories?"

(I know my own answer, but I'm curious what the Conspiracy Theorists will say)

I suppose somewhere in the not so distant future, when threads about 9/11 are moved from this section of the forum?:)

[Horatius]

No one considers the Tuskegee Experiment, Lee Harvey Oswald shooting the president, or Watergate to be "Conspiracy Theories"...because they're supported. So where is the "line-drawn" between actual history, plots and plans and "conspiracy theories?"

(I know my own answer, but I'm curious what the Conspiracy Theorists will say)




Here's what I want to know: When has a complicated, unsupported "theory" about a conspiracy ever been shown to be true? Were there people running around proclaiming the existence of the Tuskegee Experiments for years prior to any verifiable evidence being published? Were any of these people regular joes like the twoofers, who just "connected the dots"? Did they spend years incorrectly analysing "evidence", and yet still stumble upon the truth?

[Rahne Everson]

Experts can be wrong. I'd say when the preponderance of the evidence supports the conspiracy theory.

Again, nowhere close to what the Twoofers claim.

I agree. The proof is in the pudding.

[PhantomWolf]

I suppose somewhere in the not so distant future, when threads about 9/11 are moved from this section of the forum?:)

Which threads, most of the "Truth"TM Movement's arguments are mutually exclusive. You guys have to come up with one internally consistant and logical theory before it comes close to being taken seriously. Currently it is so full of contradictions and pretzel logic it isn't funny.

e.g. There were no detonations during the collapses because it was done with thermate/mite, but the concreate was pulverised by explosives.