The problem w/most conspiracy theories & the Conspiracy theorists that love them

[OzmO]

The problem with most conspiracy theories and the Conspiracy theorists that love them:


-  Most of them are based solely on conjecture of partial or circumstancial facts stung together to form a CT......mostly (I'll send $10 to first person who can tell me the movie that used the words most and mostly and the comedy series where it was mocked on.)

-  The vast majority of the conclusions from these partial or circumstancial facts are from people who have little or no expertese in the related fields.

-  Many CT'ers and CT's  omitt or change the details of the supporting facts with words like "all" "every", "some" "none" etc... to make their arguement stronger

-  they often believe in multiple conspiracies (for instance the faked moon landing), which really detracts from their credibility.

-  And finally, the CT'ers themsleves usually have a flair for the dramatic and used cheesy persuasive techniques to "sell" their theories.



Becuase of the complexity of 9/11 and the plethora of variables and anomilies involved it is a perfact canidate for a CT.

[Dos Equis]

In addition, they often believe in multiple conspiracies (for instance the faked moon landing), which really detracts from their credibility. 

[240 is Back]

Wow, you have probably started a dozen threads about how much you hate the 911 skeptics.

You've admitted it yourself, that you believe Bush probably knew and let it happen, so that we could start wars.

Why is it so hard to believe that some in govt would LET 3000 die by not alerting authorities... but you absolutely cannot believe that some in govt would LET 3000 die by turning a blind eye to things or stalling their reactions so that the bad guys could reach the targets? (The FAA/Norad folks who lied on the stands and destroyed evidence)

[OzmO]

In addition, they often believe in multiple conspiracies (for instance the faked moon landing), which really detracts from their credibility. 

very nice. i added it.   

[240 is Back]

In addition, they often believe in multiple conspiracies (for instance the faked moon landing), which really detracts from their credibility. 

And YOU have admittited you would trust the nutjob alex jones to inform you of a terrorist attack, before you'd trust your own president. This puts you in the LIHOP (let it happen on purpose) crowd, since no one who believes Bush would even allow the possibiliy Bush wouldn't let them know.

It's so funny... the two of you don't have faith in your own Prez to warn you about a terror attack... but you have faith to defend his involvement - when even HE refuses to answer questions by reporters about what he knew beforehand.

Yes, you're defending a guy who won't defend himself on that.  You noticed that?  Bush and Cheney - neither man has ever denied knowing about 911.  They always changed the subject when asked.  You're defending them because "they wouldn't do that!", when they won't deny it.  Wow.

[Dos Equis]

very nice. i added it.   

 

[OzmO]

Wow, you have probably started a dozen threads about how much you hate the 911 skeptics.

You've admitted it yourself, that you believe Bush probably knew and let it happen, so that we could start wars.

Why is it so hard to believe that some in govt would LET 3000 die by not alerting authorities... but you absolutely cannot believe that some in govt would LET 3000 die by turning a blind eye to things or stalling their reactions so that the bad guys could reach the targets? (The FAA/Norad folks who lied on the stands and destroyed evidence)

First off,  i don't hate 911 skeptics.  Frankly, if we knew each other in real life i believe we'd get along great.  You are good guy with good intentions.  And i've only met 911 CT'ers on this forum and there isn't anyone i hate or don't like.

What don;t believe about 9/11 is:

-  The WTC's where hit by holograms

-  The WTC's were wried with bombs

-  The pentagon was hit with something other then a plane

-  Flight 93 was shot down by a american jet

-  WTC7 was demolished

-  The FAA purposely let it happen

-  And all the theories associated with the above.

[Dos Equis]

And YOU have admittited you would trust the nutjob alex jones to inform you of a terrorist attack, before you'd trust your own president. This puts you in the LIHOP (let it happen on purpose) crowd, since no one who believes Bush would even allow the possibiliy Bush wouldn't let them know.

It's so funny... the two of you don't have faith in your own Prez to warn you about a terror attack... but you have faith to defend his involvement - when even HE refuses to answer questions by reporters about what he knew beforehand.

Yes, you're defending a guy who won't defend himself on that.  You noticed that?  Bush and Cheney - neither man has ever denied knowing about 911.  They always changed the subject when asked.  You're defending them because "they wouldn't do that!", when they won't deny it.  Wow.

 

[240 is Back]

First off,  i don't hate 911 skeptics.  Frankly, if e knew each other in real life i believe we'd get along great.  You are good guy with good intentions.  And i've only met 911 CT'ers on this forum and there isn't anyone i hate or don't like.
What don;t believe about 9/11 is:
-  The WTC's where hit by holograms
-  The WTC's were wried with bombs
-  The pentagon was hit with something othr then a plane
-  Flight 93 was shot down by a american jet
-  WTC7 was demolished
-  The FAA purposely let it happen
-  And all the theories associated with the above.

I know some of the CTers go overboard.  Just like some neocons go over ("Rush is right!  We need 5 simultaneous wars to deliver cruise missiles of freedom!")

Point is, everyone knows there's enough holes in the 911 story to justify a real investigation.  Some want one cause they want justice.  Some just don't like Bush or the war.  Some people don't want one, cause it might show some in power slacked.  Some people don't want one cause it might show domestic involvement. 

If a person can honestly look at WTC7 falling, the weird Penn hole in the ground with zero debris, and the super organized way the towers both fell so quickly - and not suspect anything weird - they are not a CTer.

If a person looks at any of these and says "that's weird, I don't fully believe that", they are a CTer.  They doubt the official story.  And it's OKAY.

[OzmO]

I know some of the CTers go overboard.  Just like some neocons go over ("Rush is right!  We need 5 simultaneous wars to deliver cruise missiles of freedom!")

Point is, everyone knows there's enough holes in the 911 story to justify a real investigation.  Some want one cause they want justice.  Some just don't like Bush or the war.  Some people don't want one, cause it might show some in power slacked.  Some people don't want one cause it might show domestic involvement. 

I think it's prudent to have a second investigation as a matter of practice in things like this. 

That being said.  I belive even if there is solid evidence of prior knowledge that it willbe covered up for the sake of goverment credibility.  What a second investigation will show in all likely hood is massive failures in intellence and security/disaster repsonse times.

If a person can honestly look at WTC7 falling, the weird Penn hole in the ground with zero debris, and the super organized way the towers both fell so quickly - and not suspect anything weird - they are not a CTer.

If a person looks at any of these and says "that's weird, I don't fully believe that", they are a CTer.  They doubt the official story.  And it's OKAY.

WTC7 doesn't seem to make sense, but so do alot of things and in the end there's a reasonable explaination.  I'm not ruling out it was demolished, i just don't think it was.  I am howver ruling out the other things on that list.

Aslo, the WTC's didn;t seesm like they fell very organized to me.

[Dos Equis]

I wonder if a "second investigation" will tell us where Flights 77 and 93, and all of the passengers, are hiding? 

[240 is Back]

I wonder if a "second investigation" will tell us where Flights 77 and 93, and all of the passengers, are hiding? 

damn, that's insensitive. 

Dude, suppose your wife and daughter were on flight 93.

Then you looked at that hole in the ground, for closure, and what did you see?  A hole, shaped like a plane only much smaller, and zero debris?

I know when i've posted the pic, you don't spend one second looking.  But what about the fmaily members? Do you think they're so damn flippant about it?

You're a liar and an insensitive prick.  You're also a shitty american:
-You lied about your job as a "college professor".
-You disrespect the dead by mocking the 93 crash site
-You defend abuses of our constitution.

Seriously, you're an embarassment to this country.

[Dos Equis]

damn, that's insensitive. 

Dude, suppose your wife and daughter were on flight 93.

Then you looked at that hole in the ground, for closure, and what did you see?  A hole, shaped like a plane only much smaller, and zero debris?

I know when i've posted the pic, you don't spend one second looking.  But what about the fmaily members? Do you think they're so damn flippant about it?

You're a liar and an insensitive prick.  You're also a shitty american:
-You lied about your job as a "college professor".
-You disrespect the dead by mocking the 93 crash site
-You defend abuses of our constitution.

Seriously, you're an embarassment to this country.

  

 

240 when you are ready to march on Washington to demand an investigation into the faked moon landing, I am with you brother.  Just say the word! 

[Hugo Chavez]

The problem with most conspiracy theories and the Conspiracy theorists that love them:


-  Most of them are based solely on conjecture of partial or circumstancial facts stung together to form a CT......mostly (I'll send $10 to first person who can tell me the movie that used the words most and mostly and the comedy series where it was mocked on.)

-  The vast majority of the conclusions from these partial or circumstancial facts are from people who have little or no expertese in the related fields.

-  Many CT'ers and CT's  omitt or change the details of the supporting facts with words like "all" "every", "some" "none" etc... to make their arguement stronger

-  they often believe in multiple conspiracies (for instance the faked moon landing), which really detracts from their credibility.

-  And finally, the CT'ers themsleves usually have a flair for the dramatic and used cheesy persuasive techniques to "sell" their theories.



Becuase of the complexity of 9/11 and the plethora of variables and anomilies involved it is a perfact canidate for a CT.

I've been around the conspiracy world for a long time.  about 15 years solidly. As a longtime conspiracy theorist I can tell you, I've heard some real wild bullshit from some very unstable people.  But it's important to realize that society takes everyone with a conspiracy theory and dumps them in the same pit.  So right next to some clown arguing the validity of the Philadelphia experiment is someone with real valid theories that need examined and investigated with seriousness.  I do not follow all theories... We did land on the moon and I can prove that shit.  There was no fuggin Philadelphia experiment and I can prove that shit too.  I do believe that there was a concerted effort by a faction of our government to at least turn a blind eye and allow 9/11.  I do believe in government involvement in the USS Liberty.  I do believe in some NWO conspiracies and as far as I'm concerned with that, we're entering into a time where events obviously make the NWO conspiracies a big no shit huh...  I do my best to listen to both sides and weigh out the truth.  In this time of doing my best to listen to both sides, it has not gone un-noted that there is just as much bias in some of the skeptics as some of the CT'ers.  In fact it is not uncommon to have the skeptic absolutely out of his mind with anger and break down into mockery of the theorist rather than make any real attempt at debate.  Even when they are debating some fact, it seems they can't resist ending their points by mocking the person they're addressing, well what good is that going to do?  Sure isn't going to get the other side to see any points you're trying to make...

[Dos Equis]

I've been around the conspiracy world for a long time.  about 15 years solidly. As a longtime conspiracy theorist I can tell you, I've heard some real wild bullshit from some very unstable people.  But it's important to realize that society takes everyone with a conspiracy theory and dumps them in the same pit.  So right next to some clown arguing the validity of the Philadelphia experiment is someone with real valid theories that need examined and investigated with seriousness.  I do not follow all theories... We did land on the moon and I can prove that shit.  There was no fuggin Philadelphia experiment and I can prove that shit too.  I do believe that there was a concerted effort by a faction of our government to at least turn a blind eye and allow 9/11.  I do believe in government involvement in the USS Liberty.  I do believe in some NWO conspiracies and as far as I'm concerned with that, we're entering into a time where events obviously make the NWO conspiracies a big no shit huh...  I do my best to listen to both sides and weigh out the truth.  In this time of doing my best to listen to both sides, it has not gone un-noted that there is just as much bias in some of the skeptics as some of the CT'ers.  In fact it is not uncommon to have the skeptic absolutely out of his mind with anger and break down into mockery of the theorist rather than make any real attempt at debate.  Even when they are debating some fact, it seems they can't resist ending their points by mocking the person they're addressing, well what good is that going to do?  Sure isn't going to get the other side to see any points you're trying to make...

Well said Berserker.  I think I had mistakenly lumped you in with the CT nuts.  Sorry about that. 

[Hugo Chavez]

Well said Berserker.  I think I had mistakenly lumped you in with the CT nuts.  Sorry about that. 

are you being sarcastic 

[Dos Equis]

are you being sarcastic 

No.  What, you cannot accept a compliment and an apology? 

[240 is Back]

Well said Berserker.  I think I had mistakenly lumped you in with the CT nuts.  Sorry about that. 

If a person believes Bush let 911 happen, does that make them a CTer?

[Dos Equis]

If a person believes Bush let 911 happen, does that make them a CTer?

Let me get this straight.  You just called me, among other things, a liar, unpatriotic, and an embarrassment to this country.  And now you're asking me a question?  240, are you on drugs?   

Learn how to have a discussion like an adult and we can have plenty of debates (and avoid the eye roll). 

[240 is Back]

Let me get this straight.  You just called me, among other things, a liar, unpatriotic, and an embarrassment to this country.  And now you're asking me a question?  240, are you on drugs?  

Learn how to have a discussion like an adult and we can have plenty of debates (and avoid the eye roll). 

Ahhh - after mocking 911 CTers for months, suddenly you wanna talk like adults? lol..

Sounds like you don't wanna contradict yourself in front of berseker so now you're playing the grownup card.  Plus seeing as you are a college professor in hawaii... who debates from 4 am til 9 am Hawaii time... who cannot identify what field his PhD is in...

sounds like you don't want to answer the question.

[Dos Equis]

Ahhh - after mocking 911 CTers for months, suddenly you wanna talk like adults? lol..

Sounds like you don't wanna contradict yourself in front of berseker so now you're playing the grownup card.  Plus seeing as you are a college professor in hawaii... who debates from 4 am til 9 am Hawaii time... who cannot identify what field his PhD is in...

sounds like you don't want to answer the question.

Precisely why I don't answer (most of) your dumb questions.  You're too easy man.  You are the comic relief on this board dude.   

[Hugo Chavez]

No.  What, you cannot accept a compliment and an apology? 

Of course accepted!!! I just wasn't sure you were serious

[Hugo Chavez]

If a person believes Bush let 911 happen, does that make them a CTer?

I am a CTer, but I'm not a tox CTer.  Tox believes everything someone put a video on the net over.

[Dos Equis]

Of course accepted!!! I just wasn't sure you were serious

We're good.    

[OzmO]

I've been around the conspiracy world for a long time.  about 15 years solidly. As a longtime conspiracy theorist I can tell you, I've heard some real wild bullshit from some very unstable people.  But it's important to realize that society takes everyone with a conspiracy theory and dumps them in the same pit.  So right next to some clown arguing the validity of the Philadelphia experiment is someone with real valid theories that need examined and investigated with seriousness.  I do not follow all theories... We did land on the moon and I can prove that shit.  There was no fuggin Philadelphia experiment and I can prove that shit too.  I do believe that there was a concerted effort by a faction of our government to at least turn a blind eye and allow 9/11.  I do believe in government involvement in the USS Liberty.  I do believe in some NWO conspiracies and as far as I'm concerned with that, we're entering into a time where events obviously make the NWO conspiracies a big no shit huh...  I do my best to listen to both sides and weigh out the truth.  In this time of doing my best to listen to both sides, it has not gone un-noted that there is just as much bias in some of the skeptics as some of the CT'ers.  In fact it is not uncommon to have the skeptic absolutely out of his mind with anger and break down into mockery of the theorist rather than make any real attempt at debate.  Even when they are debating some fact, it seems they can't resist ending their points by mocking the person they're addressing, well what good is that going to do?  Sure isn't going to get the other side to see any points you're trying to make...

yep,  that's why i was sure to include and highlight the word "most"