Conspiracies everywhere! While a conspiracy theory doesn’t have to be wrong, the logic is absolutely absurd. Here’s why that’s the case along with two conspiracy theories that I often hear.

Alright now I have plenty of posts on how little the government can be trusted, and I definitely read between the lines a little, but there are just some conspiracy theories that do not make any sense whatsoever from a logical or scientific point of view. A few of these conspiracy theories include HAARP and 9/11 as an inside job.

Let’s start with HAARP; HAARP is a set of antennae used to study the ionosphere. The antennae do put out a lot of power but not nearly enough to cause any harm to the weather patterns. The conspiracy theory is that HAARP is really a weather controlling system, but let’s look at a few aspects of weather.

First off, weather is a highly complex system in math terms it shows “nonlinear dynamical chaos”; this means that a very small fluctuation in one part of the system can result in large changes over long periods of time in another part of the system. However weather systems also are made up of a high number of variables. Each of these variables needs to be known in order to predict the outcome of a weather event.

What would be needed for such a system?

A fully working meteorological model.
An advanced satellite array capable of reading in atmospheric conditions from around the planet simultaneously. These conditions include, but may not be limited to local and regional topography, temperature, pressure, and wind speed as well as solar intensity, cloud cover, and moisture content in the air.
An advanced super computer able to process the data in real time and use the fully workinhg meteorological models to calculate the necessary changes in temperature in specific areas to elicit the decided change.
The use of the same or separate satellite array capable of relaying the appropriately powerful and modulated EM radiation to the needed locations.
A power source that produces enough to be able to create a powerful EM pulse.

Now unless there is a massive set of satellites that we aren’t aware of, a huge power source that we don’t know exists, and computers far more powerful than the most advanced super computers in the world, then I’d say that HAARP is indeed quite unlikely.

9/11 Theories
Here’s the general idea of the 9/11 conspiracy. The main thought is that it was really an inside job performed by the government for some reason to get us into Afghanistan and Iraq.

Well there are a lot of issues with the 9/11 theories. First is why? To get oil? It seems kind of dumb to destroy an economic hub so that you can get oil from a nation that isn’t even a major producer. It would make a lot more sense to just worm your way in by being friendly. The United States did put the power structure in place after all.

The next issue is that the number of explosives and their locations to get the building to go down would have been many so how did they all get placed inside without anyone noticing? It doesn’t seem likely.

Some claim that a plane couldn’t have caused the damage to the buildings, I’m not a material scientist or a structural engineer myself, but pretty much every engineer I’ve spoken with has said that it definitely could have and most likely was the source of the collapse.

Combined
Finally, let’s look at the two conspiracy theories combined for a moment, since many people who believe in the 9/11 conspiracy also believe in the HAARP conspiracy. If the United States has the ability to control the weather to such a degree, why didn’t we just knock Afghanistan and Iraq off the map with a massive natural disaster and then go in to both in the name of “humanitarian aid”? That’s what I would have done if I had a weather machine. Next, if we have the power to control the weather, which needs a huge energy source, why do we even need the oil i the first place?

Logic and Debate

There are so many other conspiracy theories that I could write a book if I wanted to list a reasonable fraction of them. But instead of listing any more, I think it would be more reasonable to discuss what makes a conspiracy theory different from a scientific theory. First, conspiracy theories violate Occam’s razor. They do not rely on anything close to the simplest explanation. Second, there are often so many competing “theories” for the same assertion that they end up being self contradictory. This is often because the “theory” comes first and then the rest of the explanation and “evidence” comes later. And finally, if you have an opposing view, you are often labeled as being part of the conspiracy. Indeed, there have been many cases where someone who holds one version of the conspiracy as being true actually asserts that those who profess the other version as being true are part of the conspiracy.