The main problem with all conspiracy theories like those you listed is that they confuse facts and scientific research for speculation and innuendo. Here's a re-post of something I posted in politics about conspiracy theories in general.
[ QUOTE ]
There's a very comprehensive FAQ that deals with the JFK assassination
here.
Section 8 of this FAQ deals with the type of tactics conspiracy books/theorists use to perpetrate their theories.
It's a excellent checklist when reviewing conspiracy theorist's "evidence." Here's a summary, but I'd recommend reading the entire section.
1. Sell emotion first
...powerful emotions flow from the belief in a conspiracy. When these feelings can be established upfront by the conspiracy author, typically by enjoining the reader in the author's own passion, the reader may be persuaded to drop his natural skepticism regarding fantastic plots.
2. Scare the reader away from primary documents
A careful reader would examine
reports to check whether it is being accurately represented in the conspiracy books. (It's frequently not.) To forestall this examination, which risks exposing the author's deceit, the report is described as unreadable or utterly worthless.
3. Distort the evidence
Since most people will trust a book, and not double-check its claims against the source material, it is a simple matter to alter the import of the evidence by eliminating key details.
4. Emphasize eyewitness testimony
The weakest major class of evidence is eyewitness testimony. This is because of the inherent unreliability of human memory. Not only does memory change over time, even surprisingly short periods, but it is seldom accurate in the first place.
5. Emphasize unsworn witnesses
...interviews given to authors. These are usually conducted in an informal atmosphere, where freewheeling speculation and factual recollection may become mingled. The subject is under no obligation to be truthful, and the author has the freedom to follow suggestive lines of inquiry. The author can also quote out of context since his notes are a private document.
6. Raise non-essential issues
Every piece of evidence has to be challenged. Raising doubts ...even when it is of no import.
7. Omit the complete context of the evidence
Conspiracy authors omit much of the context of their evidence, only it is usually for worse motives than concealing controversy. It is more often to make the evidence sound more sinister than it is.
8. Promote yourself to expert
The vast majority of conspiracy books are written by laymen, persons with no relevant expertise to the technical issues in the case. This is not necessarily a bar to writing a well-researched book. Many generalists make excellent journalists. However, such writers know their limitations and rely on unbiased experts in the various fields. Too many conspiracy authors, on the other hand, pass judgment on technical issues
without consulting the real experts.
9. Don't solicit the other side of the story
Often in conspiracy books, the author cites a quote or two, or a memo or handwritten notation, from some person involved with case, and tells us that the person is inconsistent and must therefore be incompetent or have something sinister to hide.
10. Accuse the defenseless
In the great conspiracy hunt, many innuendos get tossed around, suggestive of lying, cover-up, of acquiesence and complicity in extremely serious crimes. However, there is a risk for the conspiracy author of libel sanctions. The careful reader will therefore discern a measure of caution in the way things are worded. Outright accusations are seldom made unless the victim is unable to defend themselves, either because they are public figures who can't legally retaliate, or they are dead.
11. Emphasize preliminary information
...hasty judgments are often poor judgments. If such judgments are made to the press, whether right or not, they become immortalized in print or on film.
12. Recycle discredited evidence
In one of the most seriously deceptive techniques employed by conspiracy books, old issues are raised to provoke the readers' anxiety, but the reader is not informed of the resolution to the issue. It's one thing to dispute the resolution, it's another to conceal it from the unwitting reader.
[/ QUOTE ]
This quote is a good example of this:
[ QUOTE ]
On 9/11 there were war game exercises taking place (a plane hijacking scenario) many of our fighter jets were doing these exercises (some of which took place in alaska). There were only 8 jets that were able to respond. Not to mention mass confusion.
[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong. I know someone that was scrambled when the planes begin to hit. There weren't only 8 planes available.
[ QUOTE ]
Not to mention mass confusion.
[/ QUOTE ]
According to whom? The fighter pilot I know and his wing didn't experience "mass confusion."
But, even though I say that and this information can easily be checked you'll see conspiracy theorists still parrot these same types of "facts" over and over again.
Belief in conspiracy theories is a very good barometer of judging if someone can think logically and distinguish relevant facts from emotion and heresy. Sadly too many people fail this simple test.