Cut to what made me think...
OK, look, what is the connection between the fact that the Conspiracy Theorists look for conspiratorial answers, and what appears to be their more limited experience with the world? (As opposed to, for example, someone like Gumboot in this matter under discussion).
I've probably not expressed that clearly, but I hope people get the point. There is an inverse relationship between experience, and expectation of conspiracies.
Inquiring minds want to know.
ETA: What I mean is this. I don't know anything about aircraft beyond what a passenger knows. For whatever reason, a number of Jref members seem to be very experienced with aircraft in a more positive sense. Meanwhile, the Conspiracy Theorists largely seem ignorant of aircraft (except perhaps as passengers). What is the relationship between experience and expectation of conspiracies? I'm still not saying that well.
I know exactly what you mean, and I've thought the same thing myself many times. A lot of Conspiracy Theories seem to revolve around a lack of exposure to anything similar to what is being debated. A good example would be this notion of a vast well-oiled government organisation that is able to respond to any crisis the instant any element of the organisation becomes aware of it. Contrast that with the experience of anyone who has ever worked in government.
It seems to revolve around "My own common sense tells me that in situation A, X should have happened, but Y happened, so it's suspicious". Never mind that the person has no experience with anything remotely like A.
What I notice is that if you've had personal experience with one of these "counter-intuitive" situations, you're far less likely to fall into the faulty logic above in other situations you're not familiar with. For example I have no familiarity with building collapses or fires, but because I have familiarity with other odd things such as high-speed low-flying aircraft, I'm aware of how far off base my assumptions could be in such unfamiliar territory, so I defer to those that have such experience.
I don't think it's necessarily just a conspiracy thing either - you see it all the time in the newspaper.
For example a few days ago here in Auckland some armed men robbed a liquor store and shot one of the workers. A short time later police arrived and set up a cordon back from the location and started to seal off the area. An ambulance also arrived shortly after, and waited at the holding point. About twenty minutes later after armed police arrived (our police are not usually armed) and the area was secured they entered the store, determined it was safe, and allowed paramedics in to treat the victim. The man subsequently died of his wound in hospital.
This has created the usual flurry of police-bashing in our media, with demands to know why police took so long to get help to the victim. The perceived expectation is that unarmed police and paramedics should have just charged into an unknown situation where there could be as many as three armed men, based solely on the assurances of an unknown caller that the gunmen had gone - all to save a single person whose medical state was completely unknown.
This, of course, has all been fired up by the unqualified claim of a fellow worker that the victim would have survived if treated earlier.
This is really no different to a classic conspiracy theory claim. An expectation exists, based entirely on faulty logic and a lack of awareness of the real world. The "official" explanation is rejected out of hand as it undermines that faulty logic. The only difference is that while the New Zealand Herald and its readers stop at accusations of incompetence and heartlessness, Conspiracy Theorists carry it one further to malicious intent.
In the end it boils down to "If I was in that situation I would...".
Reminds me of laughing at knife-wielding terrorists and beating them to death with luggage...
