Why do people belive in CTs (Need for higher purpose?)

[Mac53]

I have been down the rabbit hole of conspiracy theory's and realize there is no end, it just keeps going and going like our imagination. It is almost like a movie or t.v show where a new reality is experienced.

I would assume that most people would agree that most CTs are not factual but based on a small simple fact with great speculation leading to some great conclusion.

I really researched the CTs as a way of finding the truth. At the end i realized that CTs are nothing more then another religious belief. One where you must believe because things will happen in the year xxxx.

I would also note i was a christian and attended church for a long time. So in my personal experience both are forms of control. I do not know if you agree with me on that one of not but in my observation it is.

When i studied CTs i felt special, a gift to the world as if i was the chosen one among the others to save the world from the evil...(reptilians,elite, etc) When i really got sucked in, i would look at "9/11 debunked" or things of that nature and just dismiss it even though they where presenting some good information. I was not protecting the CTs but now my identity of "hero of the world".

We can surely see this among all the religions can we not? I see all these religion getting people to think they are special for obeying a god and his rules and saving(converting) people and saving hte world from evil.

I think that you do not need proof in a belief based theory. All you need is a reason to believe.

I also feel as if most CTs just follow along and copy paste paragraphs, links, upload movies and claim it as the truth. When they cannot even explain it in their own words. They have attached themselves to the "I'm a hero, i must save the world" mentality.

As well, i feel that most CTs are people who do not go into higher learning (university) they seek a PURPOSE to their life. Also the group of people who are very obedient to their parents seek a form of control and reason for their lives. May it be a CT or religion bot hare the same IMO.

This is why it is so easy to laugh at these people when they post their nonsense that sadly they don't understand but claim it as truth.

There are strange things going on in our world but speculation will not point to the answer, facts will. I am not saying that some CT are not possible, perhaps with more information and evidence some may become true. But if the conspiracy is true proving them is impossible, how can you accuse the government of mass murder and demand they investigate it?

I think CTs is just another manifestation of the people need for higher purpose in life?

This is obviously just my observations of myself being in both religion and in the CT world...i feel as if i'm on to something but maybe further research into this will uncover more?

Am i feeling this is new information or am i just not looking around to much? :rolleyes:

[Wowbagger]

Humans are generally good at developing models of the world, in their own heads. Some models happen to be less accurate, than others. But, they all make perfect sense inside the person's own mind.

[LightinDarkness]

I'd say what you are talking about is pretty well documented by this forum. JREF is great because it contains quite a few former CTers and wooists who later embraced rational thinking, and while their stories are different all of them seem to notate that belief in CT caused feelings of superiority, grandeur, elevated intelligence, etc. However, its good to have yet another personal Ex-CTer verification that the "I'm special" effect is central in CT thinking.

I've often suggested that were any of the CT mythology embraced by the mainstream, it would immediately lose its appeal to CTers. Thats because its not so much about the truth when it comes to CT, its believing that you are a warrior of light against the armies of your mythological arch enemy (the NWO, Illuminati, whatever). The enjoyment comes from the belief that CTers have that they are secret holders of this knowledge - granting them the self-perceived position of being elevated and better than others. Although the CTers evangelize, deep down they know the mainstream would never embrace their lies. If they did, the CTers would immediately discard it.

[Mac53]

I'd say what you are talking about is pretty well documented by this forum. JREF is great because it contains quite a few former CTers and wooists who later embraced rational thinking, and while their stories are different all of them seem to notate that belief in CT caused feelings of superiority, grandeur, elevated intelligence, etc. However, its good to have yet another personal Ex-CTer verification that the "I'm special" effect is central in CT thinking.

I've often suggested that were any of the CT mythology embraced by the mainstream, it would immediately lose its appeal to CTers. Thats because its not so much about the truth when it comes to CT, its believing that you are a warrior of light against the armies of your mythological arch enemy (the NWO, Illuminati, whatever). The enjoyment comes from the belief that CTers have that they are secret holders of this knowledge - granting them the self-perceived position of being elevated and better than others. Although the CTers evangelize, deep down they know the mainstream would never embrace their lies. If they did, the CTers would immediately discard it.

Yea, i figured that this site would have intelligent people. I just around the whole CT community and when you brainwashing yourself and look at things without the identity but rather with reason it all makes some sense.

I was offered this site by this guy on youtube who had some debunking video's and just told me, "go here it's all debunked many times over on JREF".

Thanks for the comments glad to see other reasoning people exist.

[Trojan_Jockey]

I have been down the rabbit hole of conspiracy theory's and realize there is no end, it just keeps going and going like our imagination. It is almost like a movie or t.v show where a new reality is experienced.

I would assume that most people would agree that most CTs are not factual but based on a small simple fact with great speculation leading to some great conclusion.

I really researched the CTs as a way of finding the truth. At the end i realized that CTs are nothing more then another religious belief. One where you must believe because things will happen in the year xxxx.

I would also note i was a christian and attended church for a long time. So in my personal experience both are forms of control. I do not know if you agree with me on that one of not but in my observation it is.

When i studied CTs i felt special, a gift to the world as if i was the chosen one among the others to save the world from the evil...(reptilians,elite, etc) When i really got sucked in, i would look at "9/11 debunked" or things of that nature and just dismiss it even though they where presenting some good information. I was not protecting the CTs but now my identity of "hero of the world".

We can surely see this among all the religions can we not? I see all these religion getting people to think they are special for obeying a god and his rules and saving(converting) people and saving hte world from evil.

I think that you do not need proof in a belief based theory. All you need is a reason to believe.

I also feel as if most CTs just follow along and copy paste paragraphs, links, upload movies and claim it as the truth. When they cannot even explain it in their own words. They have attached themselves to the "I'm a hero, i must save the world" mentality.

As well, i feel that most CTs are people who do not go into higher learning (university) they seek a PURPOSE to their life. Also the group of people who are very obedient to their parents seek a form of control and reason for their lives. May it be a CT or religion bot hare the same IMO.

This is why it is so easy to laugh at these people when they post their nonsense that sadly they don't understand but claim it as truth.

There are strange things going on in our world but speculation will not point to the answer, facts will. I am not saying that some CT are not possible, perhaps with more information and evidence some may become true. But if the conspiracy is true proving them is impossible, how can you accuse the government of mass murder and demand they investigate it?

I think CTs is just another manifestation of the people need for higher purpose in life?

This is obviously just my observations of myself being in both religion and in the CT world...i feel as if i'm on to something but maybe further research into this will uncover more?

Am i feeling this is new information or am i just not looking around to much? :rolleyes:

What interests me is how you actually interpreted the facts the debunkers presented. You said you went to the debunking websites and dismissed what you read, as I'm sure man CTs do. I'm interested in how you rationalised your views against what you read. Did you presume the debunkers were part of the establishment or that they were lying?

[T.A.M.]

Depends on the CT, IMO. Yes there are commonalities, but there are some unique properties for each that attract a certain crowd (although there is evidence that those that believe in one CT are more likely to believe others).

Religion - Morphine for the masses. A fear that when it is over, it is over.
NWO/911 truth - Anger and Rage against authority
JFK - A sense of loss, and the need to lash out. The death of a generation's hero
Moon Hoax - A fear that we might start to explore other worlds
Alien Visitations - A fear that we are the only intelligent life out there. A sense of being chosen (the chosen).

The commonality in all of that, is the need to believe that all is not as it seems.

TAM:)

[JihadJane]

Why do people belive in CTs?

Because powerful people conspire to maintain and expand their power?

[Trojan_Jockey]

Because powerful people conspire to maintain and expand their power?

That doesn't explain why many CTers believe what the Iranian government say and dismiss whatever the US media says.

CTers seem to trust certain powerful people.

[Mac53]

What interests me is how you actually interpreted the facts the debunkers presented. You said you went to the debunking websites and dismissed what you read, as I'm sure man CTs do. I'm interested in how you rationalised your views against what you read. Did you presume the debunkers were part of the establishment or that they were lying?

I think i didn't do so much research into debunkers but it was kind of like what rational people do to CTs. For example, the classic "pull it" from Larry S. Everyone automatically assumes it's a word for demolition therefore it's proof enough and dots are connected. Until of course he goes on to explain he was referring to pulling out the fire fighters. (How would it make sense for someone to demolish the WTC to go on and give direct proof, and why would he even go on air if he was committing a crime...)

Anyway, i would look at this and say, he messed up and gave away the secret and therefor the CT still holds true. It's not a matter of rational thought but a matter of which order the information is presented to the viewer. Sort of like it doesn't matter what religion you believe in when it is based on your location(where your born). When the CT is the core belief everything else is wrong etc. Sort of like When Christianity is the core belief, Islam and Judaism is the devil or whatever.

I think i looked at debunkers as hey these guys are just miss informed an trying to do what i am doing but they don't got enough info.

Obviously the only reason i rid myself of the CTs is because my constant need to validate the information which unfortunately for the CT did not hold up. I just realized that CTs is like religion and there is no point of believing something just because it may be possible.

Also i think the idea of debunkers and opposition to the CTs where brought upon by the CT leaders like David Icke, Alex Jone or what ever. The CT theorist you must remember, follow a leader(s), and ironically call everyone else ...sheep :rolleyes:

[Praktik]

As well, i feel that most CTs are people who do not go into higher learning (university) they seek a PURPOSE to their life. Also the group of people who are very obedient to their parents seek a form of control and reason for their lives. May it be a CT or religion bot hare the same IMO.

Actually there is anther interesting parallel here. I know there are many CTs with post-secondary educations, one who gets cited by AJ all the time is political science major at Simon Fraser. Even so, the ones I know in my personal life don't have post-secondary educations and its from these that I've observed a rather deep distrust of education in general, forming the heart of a bias against university education.

I am an international relations major, and I've been devouring political thought for many hours a day since before I was out of high school. This has kind of inured me to many CTs - I don't pretend to know exactly how the world works, but when someone claims "the economic crisis was engineered" - I know it doesn't work that way. When someone talks about NAFTA or the EU or the UN in terms not too far away from those the John Birch Society would use, I know it doesn't work that way.

Frequently in debates with these people they'll refer to how "programmed" I am for my education - not realizing that there were many profs I pissed off (especially this one NATO lover) and I went to school with die hard communists, anarchists and other fringe political devotees who weren't "de-programmed" and taught to love "the system".

This hate-on for education is also well represent in the hardcore religious community: witness the home-school movement and the evolution fights.

Another parallel between CT devotees and religion.

[LightinDarkness]

Because powerful people conspire to maintain and expand their power?

Except in reality, such conspiracies are few, small in scope, quickly exposed, and almost universal failures.

Real conspiracies are the best proof against the mythology CTers like Jihad believe in.

[Brainster]

Remember that for the vast majority of human history, paranoia has been an excellent survival trait, and that pareidolia (seeing patterns and making connections that others may not) can be an excellent way to get rich if the patterns and connections you see are real.

In literature and movies, people who are paranoid are almost always right; this goes back to Cassandra who correctly warned that bringing the wooden horse inside Troy's walls would doom the city. Think about Richard Dreyfuss putting together Devil's Tower in his living room. Was he a nut, or was he one of the few sane ones?

It is extremely rare that they turn out to be brilliant but wrong like John Nash in A Beautiful Mind. Indeed, as I have commented before that film could never have succeeded as fiction; it could only work because it was at least based on fact.

So there's a cultural aspect to this as well.

[Mac53]

Remember that for the vast majority of human history, paranoia has been an excellent survival trait, and that pareidolia (seeing patterns and making connections that others may not) can be an excellent way to get rich if the patterns and connections you see are real.

In literature and movies, people who are paranoid are almost always right; this goes back to Cassandra who correctly warned that bringing the wooden horse inside Troy's walls would doom the city. Think about Richard Dreyfuss putting together Devil's Tower in his living room. Was he a nut, or was he one of the few sane ones?

It is extremely rare that they turn out to be brilliant but wrong like John Nash in A Beautiful Mind. Indeed, as I have commented before that film could never have succeeded as fiction; it could only work because it was at least based on fact.

So there's a cultural aspect to this as well.

Yea i think i agree with this... Most CTs lead ot some sort of paranoid thinking and a threat to something of theirs. Such as freedom or life itself.

The thing is we have science and rational thinking now. We have laws, it aint much of a jungle but there still is corruption, people will do anything for a buck when they are desperate or sucked in.

good point there,..

[JihadJane]

That doesn't explain why many CTers believe what the Iranian government say and dismiss whatever the US media says.

CTers seem to trust certain powerful people.

Can you provide some examples of this? A rational person believes neither the Iranian government nor the US media.

Except in reality, such conspiracies are few, small in scope, quickly exposed, and almost universal failures.

Real conspiracies are the best proof against the mythology CTers like Jihad believe in.

On the contrary, people with shared interests meet all the time to discuss ways of protecting their interests. Prosecuting wars, for example, requires detailed coordination.

[LightinDarkness]

On the contrary, people with shared interests meet all the time to discuss ways of protecting their interests. Prosecuting wars, for example, requires detailed coordination.

Further insight in to the CT mindset: people who meet to talk about/protect shared interests are conspiring. For the rest of us, people meeting to discuss and further shared interests is called every day life. We do it in school (conspiring to protect shared interests: increasing knowledge), we do it when we go to work (conspiring to protect shared interests: making money), we do it when we go out to eat with friends (conspiring to protect shared interests: eating good food), we do it in just about everything they do.

Back in reality, this isn't a conspiracy.

It must be amazing to live in a world where such common things are considered proof of conspiracy.

Oh, and your example? A terrible one - the nature of wars is that its almost impossible to conspire around them. Far to many players involved, and an entire opposition that your fighting which doesn't share your interests and wants to destroy them.

[JihadJane]

Get back to reality, LightinDarkness! Dirty war is liberally lubricated with conspiracy.


Warmonger and assassination meister, Dick Cheney, for example has done a lot of conspiring.



Conspiracy:

a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act

a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot)

a group of conspirators banded together to achieve some harmful or illegal purpose

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

In a political sense, conspiracy refers to a group of persons united in the goal of usurping or overthrowing an established political power. Typically, the final goal is to gain power through a revolutionary coup d'état or through assassination.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(political)

A civil conspiracy or collusion is an agreement between two or more parties to deprive a third party of legal rights or deceive a third party to obtain an illegal objective. ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(civil)

In the criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to break the law at some time in the future, and, in some cases, with at least one overt act in furtherance of that agreement. ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(crime)

[LightinDarkness]

Get back to reality, LightinDarkness! Dirty war is liberally lubricated with conspiracy.

You haven't operated in reality for as long as you've been a CTer, but thanks for the laugh! Over here in reality I do get a kick out of your warped and distorted view of the world though.


Warmonger and assassination meister, Dick Cheney, for example has done a lot of conspiring.

Whoops, yet another JihadJane claim that is wholly unsupported by the facts (well, that would be all your posts I guess).



Conspiracy:

a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act

a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot)

a group of conspirators banded together to achieve some harmful or illegal purpose

And as we've been over, real conspiracies are short lived, fail often, and involved a very limited number of people with a small scope. The fact that you choose to ignore this historical reality and believe in your fantastical world-wide conspiracies are your delusions, not mine.

How interesting that all of your little copy and pasted definitions (wiki, by the way? Hilarious. Is that where you do all your "research"?) have absolutely nothing to the one you originally pulled out. :rolleyes:

JihadJane - exhibit number one of the CT movement. I can't think of a better person to show the CT attitude of being "in the know about whats REALLY going on" and above the rest of us. Please, do continue posting in the thread.

[JihadJane]

Whoops, yet another JihadJane claim that is wholly unsupported by the facts (well, that would be all your posts I guess).

Perhaps you spend so much time playing with your pet “CTers” that you no longer read the news.

Cheney conspired with the CIA to keep his death squad plans hidden from Congress for eight years.

And as we've been over, real conspiracies are short lived, fail often, and involved a very limited number of people with a small scope. The fact that you choose to ignore this historical reality and believe in your fantastical world-wide conspiracies are your delusions, not mine.

What makes you think I believe in "fantastical world-wide conspiracies"? Stick to reality.

How interesting that all of your little copy and pasted definitions (wiki, by the way? Hilarious. Is that where you do all your "research"?) have absolutely nothing to the one you originally pulled out. :rolleyes:

Do you have a better definition of the word?

[Alt+F4]

Because powerful people conspire to maintain and expand their power?

Tell that to George Bush!

[LightinDarkness]

Perhaps you spend so much time playing with your pet “CTers” that you no longer read the news.

Cheney conspired with the CIA to keep his death squad plans hidden from Congress for eight years.

Would this be the same news you claim that can't be trusted? But when it fits your fantasy CT land, you suddenly do trust it? Another example of CT thinking!

Unfortunately for you, there was no "conspiring" by Dick Cheney, nor were there any "death squads". You cannot conspire when you are operating under a executive order which was never implemented - non conspiring required. Neither is capturing or killing members of a terrorist group wrong.

Also, please get the real news and not your left-wing political party hack talking points - members of Congress were not informed because the plan went no where. They were informed of the executive order and that the CIA was thinking about how to address it. They were not briefed after that because nothing happened. If it had ever been initiated they would have been briefed - Congress is not briefed on the thousands of intelligence plans which never go beyond the drawing board.

The facts debunk you, yet again:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124736381913627661.html

But I'm sure you'll go on believing: the "Cheney assassination ring" woo because it fits your political propaganda leanings and enhances your CT worldview.


What makes you think I believe in "fantastical world-wide conspiracies"? Stick to reality.

Your own parade of posts. I don't have to believe anything, its you posting it. Or are you now admitting to being a liar among all the other offenses to critical thinking you commit here on a daily basis?



Do you have a better definition of the word?

The dictionary - its a wonderful thing. I checked, by the way, and it comes no closer to the fanciful definition you pulled out of no where :)

[JihadJane]

Would this be the same news you claim that can't be trusted?

Yes, critical thinking should be be used when reading the news.

Unfortunately for you, there was no "conspiring" by Dick Cheney, nor were there any "death squads". You cannot conspire when you are operating under a executive order which was never implemented - non conspiring required. Neither is capturing or killing members of a terrorist group wrong.

The US military implemented it, carrying out several assassinations including one in Kenya. It it is also "highly unlikely that the CIA would have kept such an operation going for eight years without advancing it (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/13/cheney-cia-al-qaida-assassinations)".

Also, please get the real news and not your left-wing political party hack talking points - members of Congress were not informed because the plan went no where. They were informed of the executive order and that the CIA was thinking about how to address it. They were not briefed after that because nothing happened. If it had ever been initiated they would have been briefed - Congress is not briefed on the thousands of intelligence plans which never go beyond the drawing board.

If it's so normal why were members of Congress so angry at what was revealed by Panetta's briefing? They are bound by confidentiality and it is likely that we do not know everything he told them.

The facts debunk you, yet again:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124736381913627661.html

I cannot comment on your link as it returns as:

"PAGE UNAVAILABLE

The document you requested either no longer exists or is not currently available."

Perhaps it was factually inaccurate. ;)

Why do you trust The Wall Street Journal more than the "left-wing political party hack talking points" that you imagine I read?


.
Your own parade of posts. I don't have to believe anything, its you posting it. Or are you now admitting to being a liar among all the other offenses to critical thinking you commit here on a daily basis?

It's interesting that you berate me for not basing my opinions on fact while your own "facts" about me are inventions or delusions.

Show us any post of mine that indicates that I believe in "fantastical world-wide conspiracies".

Is it because you are so happily blanketed in the comforting fog of stereotypes, divorced from reality, that you feel no need to back up your statement beyond resorting to the juvenile cry of "liar"?


The dictionary - its a wonderful thing. I checked, by the way, and it comes no closer to the fanciful definition you pulled out of no where :)

What did it say?

Mine says:

"conspire: to plot or scheme together; to devise; to act together to one end [L conspirare, from con- together, and spirare to breathe.]"

(Chambers Dictionary)

This definition is in line with my comment that:

people with shared interests meet all the time to discuss ways of protecting their interests.

[UNLoVedRebel]

I cannot comment on your link as it returns as:

"PAGE UNAVAILABLE

The document you requested either no longer exists or is not currently available."

Perhaps it was factually inaccurate. ;)


Works fine in my neck of the woods. Snipped for rule 4

WASHINGTON -- A secret Central Intelligence Agency initiative terminated by Director Leon Panetta was an attempt to carry out a 2001 presidential authorization to capture or kill al Qaeda operatives, according to former intelligence officials familiar with the matter.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein said CIA Director Panetta, above, told lawmakers Vice President Cheney ordered information be withheld from Congress.
The precise nature of the highly classified effort isn't clear, and the CIA won't comment on its substance.

According to current and former government officials, the agency spent money on planning and possibly some training. It was acting on a 2001 presidential legal pronouncement, known as a finding, which authorized the CIA to pursue such efforts. The initiative hadn't become fully operational at the time Mr. Panetta ended it.

In 2001, the CIA also examined the subject of targeted assassinations of al Qaeda leaders, according to three former intelligence officials. It appears that those discussions tapered off within six months. It isn't clear whether they were an early part of the CIA initiative that Mr. Panetta stopped.

The revelations about the CIA and its post-9/11 activities have emerged amid a renewed fight between the agency and congressional Democrats. Last week, seven Democratic lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee released a letter that talked about the CIA effort, which they said Mr. Panetta acknowledged hadn't been properly vetted with Congress. CIA officials had brought the matter to Mr. Panetta's attention and had recommended he inform Congress.

“This is a PR campaign to save the speaker from her fibs about enhanced interrogation. ”
— Peter Wilson
Neither Mr. Panetta nor the lawmakers provided details. Mr. Panetta quashed the CIA effort after learning about it June 23.

The battle is part of a long-running tug of war between the executive branch and the legislature about how to oversee the activities of the country's intelligence services and how extensively the CIA should brief Congress. In recent years, in the light of revelations over CIA secret prisons and harsh interrogation techniques, Congress has pushed for greater oversight. The Obama administration, much like its predecessor, is resisting any moves in that direction.

Most recently, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in a dispute over what she knew about the use of waterboarding in interrogating terror suspects, has accused the agency of lying to lawmakers about its operations.


Republicans on the panel say that the CIA effort didn't advance to a point where Congress clearly should have been notified.

CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano said the agency "has not commented on the substance of the effort." He added that "a candid dialogue with Congress is very important to this director and this agency."

One former senior intelligence official said the program was an attempt "to achieve a capacity to carry out something that was directed in the finding," meaning it was looking for ways to capture or kill al Qaeda chieftains.

The official noted that Congress had long been briefed on the finding, and that the CIA effort wasn't so much a program as "many ideas suggested over the course of years." It hadn't come close to fruition, he added.

Michigan Rep. Pete Hoekstra, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said little had been spent on the efforts -- closer to $1 million than $50 million. "The idea for this kind of program was tossed around in fits and starts," he said.

Senior CIA leaders were briefed two or three times on the most recent iteration of the initiative, the last time in the spring of 2008. At that time, CIA brass said that the effort should be narrowed and that Congress should be briefed if the preparations reached a critical stage, a former senior intelligence official said.

Amid the high alert following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, a small CIA unit examined the potential for targeted assassinations of al Qaeda operatives, according to the three former officials. The Ford administration had banned assassinations in the response to investigations into intelligence abuses in the 1970s. Some officials who advocated the approach were seeking to build teams of CIA and military Special Forces commandos to emulate what the Israelis did after the Munich Olympics terrorist attacks, said another former intelligence official.

"It was straight out of the movies," one of the former intelligence officials said. "It was like: Let's kill them all."

The former official said he had been told that President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney didn't support such an operation. The effort appeared to die out after about six months, he said.

Former CIA Director George Tenet, who led the agency in the aftermath of the 2001 attacks, declined through a spokesman to comment.

Also in September 2001, as CIA operatives were preparing for an offensive in Afghanistan, officials drafted cables that would have authorized assassinations of specified targets on the spot.

One draft cable, later scrapped, authorized officers on the ground to "kill on sight" certain al Qaeda targets, according to one person who saw it. The context of the memo suggested it was designed for the most senior leaders in al Qaeda, this person said.

Eventually Mr. Bush issued the finding that authorized the capturing of several top al Qaeda leaders, and allowed officers to kill the targets if capturing proved too dangerous or risky.

Lawmakers first learned specifics of the CIA initiative the day after Mr. Panetta did, when he briefed them on it for 45 minutes.

House lawmakers are now making preparations for an investigation into "an important program" and why Congress wasn't told about it, said Rep. Jan Schakowsky, an Illinois Democrat, in an interview.

On Sunday, lawmakers criticized the Bush administration's decision not to tell Congress. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat from California, hinted that the Bush administration may have broken the law by not telling Congress.

"We were kept in the dark. That's something that should never, ever happen again," she said. Withholding such information from Congress, she said, "is a big problem, because the law is very clear."

[LightinDarkness]

Yes, critical thinking should be be used when reading the news.

But not critical thinking when it comes to reality, as you've shown by your belief in conspiracy theories?



The US military implemented it, carrying out several assassinations including one in Kenya. It it is also "highly unlikely that the CIA would have kept such an operation going for eight years without advancing it (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/13/cheney-cia-al-qaida-assassinations)".

Moving the goal posts again, are we? At first you act hysterical over the lie that the CIA somehow used this program, then you go and find that the US military did and try to use that. Heres the problem: this isn't the controversy, do you know why?


The CIA apparently did not put the plan in to operation but the US military did,


Because the military briefed congress about the use of the program - the CIA did not, because they never used it.


If it's so normal why were members of Congress so angry at what was revealed by Panetta's briefing? They are bound by confidentiality and it is likely that we do not know everything he told them.

This is political propaganda. No member of Congress is angry because this is perfectly normal, the entire made up controversy is due to Nancy Pelosi being on the run after being exposed for her lies about the CIA.



I cannot comment on your link as it returns as:

"PAGE UNAVAILABLE

The document you requested either no longer exists or is not currently available."

Perhaps it was factually inaccurate. ;)

Or perhaps you just don't want to read? ;)



Why do you trust The Wall Street Journal more than the "left-wing political party hack talking points" that you imagine I read?

Actually all the media is stating the same facts, the Wall Street Journal was just the first to come up.Remember, the media is NOT your daily talking points that you get from Daily Kos.



It's interesting that you berate me for not basing my opinions on fact while your own "facts" about me are inventions or delusions.

Your denial about the facts does not change anything. I am sorry you have deluded yourself.


Show us any post of mine that indicates that I believe in "fantastical world-wide conspiracies".

This one.


Is it because you are so happily blanketed in the comforting fog of stereotypes, divorced from reality, that you feel no need to back up your statement beyond resorting to the juvenile cry of "liar"?

Is it because you are in such denial about your embrace of fantastical fantasies, having no relationship from reality, that you feel the need to act hysterical and throw out baseless insults to back up your lies?


What did it say?

Jihad still in denial about her own made up definition.


This definition is in line with my comment that:

Only your in personal delusions, not in reality. Excuse me while I go conspire to have breakfast. ;)

[UNLoVedRebel]

Show us any post of mine that indicates that I believe in "fantastical world-wide conspiracies"
This one.
The 911 mystery displays a consistent pattern of deliberate evidence destruction. None of KSM's evidence about the 911 plot would be accepted by a court of law because it is known that he was tortured. The 911 Commission stated explicitly that it didn't aim to meet legal standards of proof. Perhaps this is why it unashamedly used torture-derived "evidence" in telling its story.

[LightinDarkness]

In addition to the one Rebel just cited, Jihad can you please explain your now very old accusation that the New York Times is a "mouthpiece of the Bush administration"? A major media source as a mouthpiece for a political administration would be a fantastical conspiracy, global even given the New York Times reach.

You have been asked for proof of that fantastical world-wide conspiracy a dozen times or more, and we still await proof of your allegations.

[JihadJane]

Actually all the media is stating the same facts, the Wall Street Journal was just the first to come up.Remember, the media is NOT your daily talking points that you get from Daily Kos.

Your imagination and reality are not the same thing.



Show us any post of mine that indicates that I believe in "fantastical world-wide conspiracies".



This one.




Where?


... can you please explain your now very old accusation that the New York Times is a "mouthpiece of the Bush administration"? A major media source as a mouthpiece for a political administration would be a fantastical conspiracy, global even given the New York Times reach.

You have been asked for proof of that fantastical world-wide conspiracy a dozen times or more, and we still await proof of your allegations.

A bit far-fetched, even for you!

[LightinDarkness]

What a surprise, the usual JihadJane response technique: ignore in total every single point that just debunked you and showed you what a fraud you are, and try to snipe with trolling comments. Oh well, not that I would expect any real contributions from you.

Your imagination and reality are not the same thing.

If only you would listen to your own rantings instead of believing your delusions.



Where?

In this thread. There is also the one linked in Rebel's post.



A bit far-fetched, even for you!

Jihad code: I have absolutely nothing to say because I've been debunked, but let me try to get away with just trolling!

You've failed again.

[JihadJane]

... ignore in total every single point that just debunked you



Sharing your opinions and attacking the arguer isn't debunking.


absolutely nothing to say...

See above and below.

Your proposition that believing the New York Times was a "mouthpiece of the Bush administration" is equivalent to believing in fantastical world-wide conspiracies is beyond ridiculous.







In this thread.

Where?

I look forward to your substantive answer.

[LightinDarkness]

Sharing your opinions and attacking the arguer isn't debunking.

I'm sorry you believe in your delusions so strongly that you ignore the facts, but this does not change the reality that you've been debunked.


Where?

I look forward to your substantive answer.

No you don't - you ignore every substantive answer you are given.

Jihad plays this game all the time. She makes outlandish statements and then tries to ignore them when debunked, and demands other people do her own research.

The board is still waiting for you to provide evidence of your fantastical conspiracy theories. Your last attempt was, as is in the tradition of everything else you post, a spectacular failure.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4886538

[icerat]

Back to the OP ....

There's two things going on with CTs - one is simply a locus of control (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locus_of_control)issue and fear of a lack of control over one's own destiny. 9/11 is a classic example of this, where a relatively simple and straightforward operation lead to a devestating attack on the US. Rather than believe a small bunch of fanatics could do it - and thus having to believe it could relatively easily happen again ... to you ... it's preferable to believe that some vast and powerful conspiracy was involved. That's more acceptable, at least it meant someone was in control.

We're pack animals and we're lost if there's not someone in control. Heck, the whole concept of religion is an attempt to put someone in charge.

Once fear is in place, then you simply need good old confirmation bias. You'll read everything through the filter of the belief you've chosen, and it will get reinforced. Thanks to the glorious internet, you can then find the right forum and surround yourself with people of similar beliefs, further reinforcing them.

Things like "moon landing hoax" CTs are a little more difficult to fit in to this theory. I'm guessing that there's very few people who believe in that CT that didn't already believe in some other CT, such as the illimunati or whatever, so that when someone floats a propaganda story (perhaps the Soviets wanting to discredit the US), or some charismatic paranoid schizoprenic gets airplay, then accepting the new CT is confirmation bias in play.

[jakesteele]

****You haven't operated in reality for as long as you've been a CTer, but thanks for the laugh! Over here in reality I do get a kick out of your warped and distorted view of the world though.



Whoops, yet another JihadJane claim that is wholly unsupported by the facts (well, that would be all your posts I guess).




And as we've been over, real conspiracies are short lived, fail often, and involved a very limited number of people with a small scope.

Those are the ones that we know about. I hope you're assuming that every single one has been uncovered.


The fact that you choose to ignore this historical reality and believe in your fantastical world-wide conspiracies are your delusions, not mine.

How interesting that all of your little copy and pasted definitions (wiki, by the way? Hilarious. Is that where you do all your "research"?) have absolutely nothing to the one you originally pulled out. :rolleyes:

JihadJane - exhibit number one of the CT movement. I can't think of a better person to show the CT attitude of being "in the know about whats REALLY going on" and above the rest of us. Please, do continue posting in the thread.

[LightinDarkness]

Jack, due to your bad ability to use forum formatting it has been almost impossible to respond to you. So lets try it this way:

1) In reference to your earlier post, where I think all you did was insert some snappy line about a forum link proving "only" 2000 deaths by CT: Hitler used the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, a completely fabricated conspiracy theory book, as a justification for World War II. Is that enough deaths due to conspiracy theories for you yet? How many people does belief in conspiracy need to kill before you find it wrong?

2) In response to the above, you are simply wrong - we know about lots of historical conspiracies which succeeded. Take for example the assassination of Caesar or the end of the Knights Templar. And yet again, in these cases it was a small conspiracy which verged on failure multiple times, although they did succeed their presence was not concealed for any material length of time. The facts are simply against you: REAL conspiracies almost always fail and are extremely small in scope in terms of players involved and resources. They bear no resemblance to the modern day conspiracy mythologies of groups such as the Illuminati, NWO, etc.

[jakesteele]

Jack, due to your bad ability to use forum formatting it has been almost impossible to respond to you. So lets try it this way:

Sorry about my posts. I'm ain't too good at forums yet.

1) In reference to your earlier post, where I think all you did was insert some snappy line about a forum link proving "only" 2000 deaths by CT: Hitler used the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, a completely fabricated conspiracy theory book, as a justification for World War II. Is that enough deaths due to conspiracy theories for you yet? How many people does belief in conspiracy need to kill before you find it wrong?

So implied in your statement is that without the Protocols Hitler wouldn't have started his stuff and nobody would have gotten killed, is that right?

2) In response to the above, you are simply wrong - we know about lots of historical conspiracies which succeeded. Take for example the assassination of Caesar or the end of the Knights Templar. And yet again, in these cases it was a small conspiracy which verged on failure multiple times, although they did succeed their presence was not concealed for any material length of time. The facts are simply against you: REAL conspiracies almost always fail and are extremely small in scope in terms of players involved and resources. They bear no resemblance to the modern day conspiracy mythologies of groups such as the Illuminati, NWO, etc.


Not quite sure about the 'in response to the above.' I think you are referring to this: "Those are the ones that we know about. I hope you're assuming that every single one has been uncovered." The last sentence should have read, "I hope you're not assuming..."

Conspiracies aren't just governments, Bernie Madoff was a conspiracy, Aruther Anderson accounting firm was a conspiracy. How many more like that are out there that we don't know?

[TheDaver]

Because they are hopelessly stupid and will cling to any outlandish claim that they might be able to momentarily fool their circle of friends with in a desperate attempt to achieve the elusive “smartest person in the room” feeling.

[JihadJane]

No you don't - you ignore every substantive answer you are given.

Jihad plays this game all the time. She makes outlandish statements and then tries to ignore them when debunked, and demands other people do her own research.



LightinDarkness, you have not given a substantive answer.

And there is nothing outlandish about my asking you to explain what makes you think I believe in "fantastical world-wide conspiracies", which is what you asserted.


As the world's foremost expert in what I believe I know that your assertion is untrue.

I asked you what made you believe it.

You replied: "Your own parade of posts."

I asked you to "Show us any post of mine that indicates that I believe in 'fantastical world-wide conspiracies'."

You replied "This one."

I asked "Where"

You replied: "In this thread."

I again asked "Where?"

and added: "I look forward to your substantive answer."

You replied: "No you don't - you ignore every substantive answer you are given."

You have not given me a substantive answer. Where in this thread is there any indication that I believe in "fantastical world-wide conspiracies"?

I look forward to your substantive answer

-------------------------


Real conspiracies:

US death squads:


"CIA director Leon Panetta just told Congress he cancelled a secret operation to assassinate al-Qaida leaders. The CIA campaign, authorized in 2001, had not yet become operational, claimed Panetta.

I respect Panetta, but his claim is humbug. The U.S. has been trying to kill al-Qaida personnel (real and imagined) since the Clinton administration. These efforts continue under President Barack Obama. Claims by Congress it was never informed are hogwash.

The CIA and Pentagon have been in the assassination business since the early 1950s, using American hit teams or third parties. For example, a CIA-organized attempt to assassinate Lebanon's leading Shia cleric, Muhammad Fadlallah, using a truck bomb, failed, but killed 83 civilians and wounded 240."

more... (http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/eric_margolis/2009/07/19/10184106-sun.html)

'Assassinations anyone?
CIA claims of cancelled campaign are hogwash'

Eric Margolis

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/eric_margolis/2009/07/19/10184106-sun.html

[JihadJane]

"There is a fascinating interview, recorded a couple of weeks ago, with Daniel Ellsberg, by Scott Horton at antiwar.com/radio. Ellsberg talks about his role in the Tonkin Gulf Resolution and about his role as a military analyst prior to his releasing the Pentagon Papers. Scott Horton, at one point, expressed his bewilderment at how Ellsberg and others, could have ignored, and even promoted, blatant lies and distortions for so long.

It was interesting to hear Ellsberg searching for an answer. He was very candid and honest and essentially said that it's easy for people in the halls of power to get caught up in the secrecy of a group lie, it tends to enhance their sense of self importance. Thousands can get caught up in it."

Comment by rebel @ CommonDreams.org

[LightinDarkness]

LightinDarkness, you have not given a substantive answer.

JihadJane, you've been given substantive answers since you started trolling, the fact that you can provide no substantive response is not my fault.


And there is nothing outlandish about my asking you to explain what makes you think I believe in "fantastical world-wide conspiracies", which is what you asserted.

Here we go again: JihadJane ignoring multiple examples of her fantastical belief in conspiracies, which is what I asserted and proved (as did other posters).


As the world's foremost expert in what I believe I know that your assertion is untrue.

Nice lie, but unfortunately your own posts betray you.


I asked you what made you believe it.

You replied: "Your own parade of posts."

Actually, I replied:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4886538
Which includes your fantastical belief in the world-wide conspiracy that the New York Times is a mouthpiece of the Bush administration.

And another poster provided:


The 911 mystery displays a consistent pattern of deliberate evidence destruction. None of KSM's evidence about the 911 plot would be accepted by a court of law because it is known that he was tortured. The 911 Commission stated explicitly that it didn't aim to meet legal standards of proof. Perhaps this is why it unashamedly used torture-derived "evidence" in telling its story.

Now, the fact that you are ignoring these examples of you woo beliefs just shows that you have no idea how to explain them except to ignore them and hope no one else notices. Your fantastical conversation you think you had with me instead of the examples provided above just shows your more in love with delusions than previously thought.


Real conspiracies:

US death squads:

Debunked in this very thread. There were no US death squads that were created by anyone conspiring.

Try again, Jihad. I'm still awaiting your substantive explanation of your belief in insane conspiracies and for examples of some of these real conspiracies that you believe are occurring. You've posted media articles where NO ONE says it was a conspiracy, with the exception of one of your propaganda talking point sources (commondreams.org, owned and subsidized by political hacks like yourself). An editorial offering 0 evidence may fit your delusions, but it isn't representative of reality.

Your failure rate: 100%. Still waiting.

[JihadJane]

@ Mac53, OP:

"There is a fascinating interview, recorded a couple of weeks ago, with Daniel Ellsberg, by Scott Horton at antiwar.com/radio. Ellsberg talks about his role in the Tonkin Gulf Resolution and about his role as a military analyst prior to his releasing the Pentagon Papers. Scott Horton, at one point, expressed his bewilderment at how Ellsberg and others, could have ignored, and even promoted, blatant lies and distortions for so long.

It was interesting to hear Ellsberg searching for an answer. He was very candid and honest and essentially said that it's easy for people in the halls of power to get caught up in the secrecy of a group lie, it tends to enhance their sense of self importance. Thousands can get caught up in it."



-------------------




JihadJane, you've been given substantive answers since you started trolling, the fact that you can provide no substantive response is not my fault.

I have asked for a substantive answer as to where your assertion that my belief in "fantastical world-wide conspiracies" comes from. You have replied that your assertion is supported by what I have written in this thread. I have asked you where. You have not shown where.



Here we go again: JihadJane ignoring multiple examples of her fantastical belief in conspiracies, which is what I asserted and proved (as did other posters).

I have asked what makes you think I believe in “fantastical world-wide conspiracies”. You have indicated there there is evidence for this assertion in this very thread. Where is it?

Which posts in this thread? Please be speciific. Just facts. No more rambling generalizations and random personal attacks, please!



Nice lie, but unfortunately your own posts betray you.

Which ones, exactly?



Actually, I replied:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4886538
Which includes your fantastical belief in the world-wide conspiracy that the New York Times is a mouthpiece of the Bush administration.

And another poster provided:



Now, the fact that you are ignoring these examples of you woo beliefs just shows that you have no idea how to explain them except to ignore them and hope no one else notices. Your fantastical conversation you think you had with me instead of the examples provided above just shows your more in love with delusions than previously thought.

Actually, you replied:

Post #20:





What makes you think I believe in "fantastical world-wide conspiracies"? Stick to reality.



Your own parade of posts. I don't have to believe anything, its you posting it. Or are you now admitting to being a liar among all the other offenses to critical thinking you commit here on a daily basis?



Believing that the New York Times acted as a mouthpiece for the Bush administration is not evidence of a belief in “fantastical world-wide conspiracies”. The New York Times frequently regurgitates the narratives of power, whichever party happens to be holding the reins.



The extract you quote is evidence of my belief that the evidence against KSM would not be acepted in a court of law and that the 911 mystery displays a consistent pattern of deliberate evidence destruction . The extract is an example of critical thinking in action. My words are not evidence of a belief in “fantastical world-wide conspiracies”, a belief I do not hold.


I did not ask you for examples of my allegedly “woo” beliefs. I asked you to where, on this thread, there is any indication that I believe in “fantastical world-wide conspracies”. You have said that there are such indications but have failed to point out where they are.

What you call our "fantastical conversation" is easily confirmed to exist by reading this thread


Debunked in this very thread. There were no US death squads that were created by anyone conspiring.

Try again, Jihad. I'm still awaiting your substantive explanation of your belief in insane conspiracies and for examples of some of these real conspiracies that you believe are occurring. You've posted media articles where NO ONE says it was a conspiracy, with the exception of one of your propaganda talking point sources (commondreams.org, owned and subsidized by political hacks like yourself). An editorial offering 0 evidence may fit your delusions, but it isn't representative of reality.

Your failure rate: 100%. Still waiting.

I have now been able to access the WSJ article, CIA Had Secret Al Qaeda Plan ("The precise nature of the highly classified effort isn't clear, and the CIA won't comment on its substance"), which, on first reading, does not appear to debunk anything. It presents no concrete evidence about the existence or not of CIA or other agencies’ assassination programs. There is information from unnamed officials, various opinions and a lot of people declining to comment. The US has been running secret death squads supporting its many violent interventions around the world for the last 60 years.

However I'll study the article and address the subject of US death squads in more depth when/if you have answered my question about where, in this thread, there is any indication that I believe in “fantastical world-wide conspiracies”.

[LightinDarkness]

It was interesting to hear Ellsberg searching for an answer. He was very candid and honest and essentially said that it's easy for people in the halls of power to get caught up in the secrecy of a group lie, it tends to enhance their sense of self importance. Thousands can get caught up in it[/COLOR]."

Ah, CT delusions in action again.



I have asked for a substantive answer as to where your assertion that my belief in "fantastical world-wide conspiracies" comes from. You have replied that your assertion is supported by what I have written in this thread. I have asked you where. You have not shown where.

You have been given two substantive answers, three times in a row - you ignoring the facts are not going to change the reality that you have been shown two examples of your insane beliefs. This is a typical woo tactic: try to completely ignore everything that shows you for who you are. I'll just keep copy and pasting it over and over, you can't hide from the truth about your insane beliefs:


Actually, I replied:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4886538
Which includes your fantastical belief in the world-wide conspiracy that the New York Times is a mouthpiece of the Bush administration.

And another poster provided your delusional statement that:

Now, the fact that you are ignoring these examples of you woo beliefs just shows that you have no idea how to explain them except to ignore them and hope no one else notices. Your fantastical conversation you think you had with me instead of the examples provided above just shows your more in love with delusions than previously thought.


Here are some more of your delusional statements:
The majority of the second or third hand information about the plot in the 911 Commission Report is referenced to KSM. The CIA destroyed the recordings of his "interrogations" but have confessed to torturing him.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4310380#post4310380

The Commission's use "information" derived from the edited transcripts of CIA interrogations is just one illustration of why the 911 Commission had zero chance of investigating, let alone uncovering, any US complicity in the attacks.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4313443#post4313443

We could go on and on, but everyone knows your the epitome of CT delusion.


I have asked what makes you think I believe in “fantastical world-wide conspiracies”. You have indicated there there is evidence for this assertion in this very thread. Where is it?

Denial is a state of being for you, Jihad. Where is it? I've only quoted back to you three times now the proof of your belief in "fantastical world-wide conspiracies." That you choose to ignore this reality only further marginalizes any chance you ever had of being taken seriously (not that this chance was all that large to begin with).


Which posts in this thread? Please be speciific. Just facts. No more rambling generalizations and random personal attacks, please!

More deflection. Its been quoted back to you multiple times. No more crying, whining, projection, and deflection Jihad. Own up to the facts.



Which ones, exactly?

Quoted above.


Actually, you replied:

Jihad continues with delusional conversations that never occurred.


Believing that the New York Times acted as a mouthpiece for the Bush administration is not evidence of a belief in “fantastical world-wide conspiracies”.

Wrong. Believing that a major media congolmerate with world-wide reach is a mouthpiece for a political institution is indeed 100% evidence of a belief in a fantastical world-wide conspiracy.


The New York Times frequently regurgitates the narratives of power, whichever party happens to be holding the reins.

Please provide evidence for this fantastical claim - but you won't because its only a delusion.


The extract you quote is evidence of my belief that the evidence against KSM would not be acepted in a court of law and that the 911 mystery displays a consistent pattern of deliberate evidence destruction . The extract is an example of critical thinking in action. My words are not evidence of a belief in “fantastical world-wide conspiracies”, a belief I do not hold.

The extract is an example of delusional thinking in action, which is why it is a perfect example of why you believe in fantastical world-wide conspiracies.


I did not ask you for examples of my allegedly “woo” beliefs. I asked you to where, on this thread, there is any indication that I believe in “fantastical world-wide conspracies”. You have said that there are such indications but have failed to point out where they are.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4916815#post4916815
You attempting to deflect the multiple examples against you have failed.


I have now been able to access the WSJ article, CIA Had Secret Al Qaeda Plan ("The precise nature of the highly classified effort isn't clear, and the CIA won't comment on its substance"), which, on first reading, does not appear to debunk anything. It presents no concrete evidence about the existence or not of CIA or other agencies’ assassination programs. There is information from unnamed officials, various opinions and a lot of people declining to comment. The US has been running secret death squads supporting its many violent interventions around the world for the last 60 years.

Another Jihad lie! Secret plans /= conspiracy! Really, Jihad, its beginning to get pathetic. The article - as with the other pieces of media that even you have cited - have noted again and again that there was no "secret death squad" and that the thing was a CIA idea which was scrapped from the beginning.



However I'll study the article and address the subject of US death squads in more depth when/if you have answered my question about where, in this thread, there is any indication that I believe in “fantastical world-wide conspiracies”.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4916815#post4916815
No amount of you denying the evidence against you is going to change reality.


Note to observers on Jihad's attempt to deflect here:
This is a classical CT propaganda method. Although there is endless evidence that Jihad holds as true powerful delusions involving world-wide conspiracies that are fantastical in nature, shewill claim every thing cited against her is somehow perfectly normal. And this shows how powerful CT delusions can be.

The goal is to deflect the argument into semantics in order to avoid the real topic of Jihad's delusions

[LightinDarkness]

Not quite sure about the 'in response to the above.' I think you are referring to this: "Those are the ones that we know about. I hope you're assuming that every single one has been uncovered." The last sentence should have read, "I hope you're not assuming..."

Conspiracies aren't just governments, Bernie Madoff was a conspiracy, Aruther Anderson accounting firm was a conspiracy. How many more like that are out there that we don't know?

Argument from ignorance fallacy, classical CT propaganda line.

[jakesteele]

Jack, due to your bad ability to use forum formatting it has been almost impossible to respond to you. So lets try it this way:

Sorry about post #31. I don't know what the hell button I pushed on that one.

1) In reference to your earlier post, where I think all you did was insert some snappy line about a forum link proving "only" 2000 deaths by CT: Hitler used the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, a completely fabricated conspiracy theory book, as a justification for World War II. Is that enough deaths due to conspiracy theories for you yet? How many people does belief in conspiracy need to kill before you find it wrong?


So if Hitler hadn't used the Protocols, then WWII wouldn't have happened?


2) In response to the above, you are simply wrong - we know about lots of historical conspiracies which succeeded. Take for example the assassination of Caesar or the end of the Knights Templar. And yet again, in these cases it was a small conspiracy which verged on failure multiple times, although they did succeed their presence was not concealed for any material length of time. The facts are simply against you: REAL conspiracies almost always fail and are extremely small in scope in terms of players involved and resources. They bear no resemblance to the modern day conspiracy mythologies of groups such as the Illuminati, NWO, etc.


First off, you use the words 'almost always fail' and "they are extremely small". You are making some black and white assumptions that you don't know. You're only going by what you hear about. Bernie Madoff (sp) was a conspiracy, World Com, Aurthur Anderson accounting, etc.
are all conspiracies a number of which involved more people than 'extremely small'.

To think that all are small and all will get exposed is naive thinking.

By the way, I have noticed on this thread and others that you are a very angry person. You show a surprising degree to truculence and belligerence. You should get a puppy so you can learn how to lighten up things.

[Undesired Walrus]

Things like "moon landing hoax" CTs are a little more difficult to fit in to this theory. I'm guessing that there's very few people who believe in that CT that didn't already believe in some other CT, such as the illimunati or whatever, so that when someone floats a propaganda story (perhaps the Soviets wanting to discredit the US), or some charismatic paranoid schizoprenic gets airplay, then accepting the new CT is confirmation bias in play.

Believe it or not, seeing it as the greatest hoax of all time is more exciting for some people than man walking on another world.

People want to believe in the Moon hoax for the same reason people wanted to believe in the Da Vinci Code. It shatters a well known fact, and opens up a new world behind it.

[LightinDarkness]

First off, you use the words 'almost always fail' and "they are extremely small". You are making some black and white assumptions that you don't know. You're only going by what you hear about. Bernie Madoff (sp) was a conspiracy, World Com, Aurthur Anderson accounting, etc.
are all conspiracies a number of which involved more people than 'extremely small'.

To think that all are small and all will get exposed is naive thinking.

By the way, I have noticed on this thread and others that you are a very angry person. You show a surprising degree to truculence and belligerence. You should get a puppy so you can learn how to lighten up things.

Why do you keep bringing up the same debunked arguments in multiple threads? I think they are, your use of forum formatting is so bad I can't be sure.

World Com was not a conspiracy, Anderson was not a conspiracy. Bernie Madoff was a conspiracy, and as we can see it again demonstrates that its small (kept it in the family besides a few staff), and didn't last.

Everything else you argued is the classical CT use of the argument from ignorance fallacy. I have noticed from your continued trolling of me that you are a very angry person. Perhaps you should stop posting to a skeptics board if the truth enrages you so much?

[jakesteele]

Argument from ignorance fallacy, classical CT propaganda line.

Argument from Ignoramus, a classical PsuedoSkeptic propaganda line.

[eirik]

I have been down the rabbit hole of conspiracy theory's and realize there is no end, it just keeps going and going like our imagination. It is almost like a movie or t.v show where a new reality is experienced.

I would assume that most people would agree that most CTs are not factual but based on a small simple fact with great speculation leading to some great conclusion.

I really researched the CTs as a way of finding the truth. At the end i realized that CTs are nothing more then another religious belief. One where you must believe because things will happen in the year xxxx.

I would also note i was a christian and attended church for a long time. So in my personal experience both are forms of control. I do not know if you agree with me on that one of not but in my observation it is.

When i studied CTs i felt special, a gift to the world as if i was the chosen one among the others to save the world from the evil...(reptilians,elite, etc) When i really got sucked in, i would look at "9/11 debunked" or things of that nature and just dismiss it even though they where presenting some good information. I was not protecting the CTs but now my identity of "hero of the world".

We can surely see this among all the religions can we not? I see all these religion getting people to think they are special for obeying a god and his rules and saving(converting) people and saving hte world from evil.

I think that you do not need proof in a belief based theory. All you need is a reason to believe.

Great post, Mac53. I share your opinions on this, I have thought the same things.

[LightinDarkness]

Argument from Ignoramus, a classical PsuedoSkeptic propaganda line.

The fact that you failed logic 101 and consider the use of logic "psuedo-skepticism" speaks for itself. Please continue to debunk yourself.

http://www.skepdic.com/ignorance.html

It takes a pretty hysterical CTer to think using logic is propaganda. Truth hurting you a bit too much for comfort? :rolleyes:

[jakesteele]

Why do you keep bringing up the same debunked arguments in multiple threads? I think they are, your use of forum formatting is so bad I can't be sure.

World Com was not a conspiracy, Anderson was not a conspiracy. Bernie Madoff was a conspiracy, and as we can see it again demonstrates that its small (kept it in the family besides a few staff), and didn't last.

Everything else you argued is the classical CT use of the argument from ignorance fallacy. I have noticed from your continued trolling of me that you are a very angry person. Perhaps you should stop posting to a skeptics board if the truth enrages you so much?


**** Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.

No, you are wrong. World Com, Bernie, Aurthur Anderson…oh, and how could I forget; Ennron, are all conspiracies. I will agree that most are a small number of people, a cabal, if you will, due to the need for secrecy.

You’re problem is that you come across like a Dark Feudal Lord ruling over your digital fiefdom.

Most of what you are saying is…

Argument from Arrogant Assumption
Argument from Omnicient Absolute
Argument from Hard line fundamentalism
Argument from Herd mentality
Argument from illusory superiority
Argument from Impudence

…to name but a few.

You should hear yourself, laying down the law of the land as though you had been elected Sheriff.
You’ve put up “Wanted, Dead or Alive’ posters all over this forum.

I suggested a puppy because he will teach you how to smile and laugh again.

[eirik]

**** Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.

Then pretty much every crime is a conspiracy. But as you know, that is not the topic for this forum. Look for "conspiracy theory", which is something completely different:

"A conspiracy theory is a term that has come to refer to any theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful Machiavellian conspirators such as a "secret team" or "shadow government" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

Be consistent with your definitions.

[eirik]

Enjoyed your posts, LightInDarkness. All is not in vain..

[Stellafane]

Why people believe in CTs is a very complex issue, for which whole books could no doubt be written. But I think that even before we can begin to tackle that question, we need to address a more fundamental one: how can people believe in CTs? By what mental mechanism do they continue to support an idea that is so obviously untrue, that defies all evidence and logic and reason? And even more perplexing from the viewpoint of the JREF forum, why do some CTers come here of all places, in what for them must seem the heart of enemy territory, to be repeatedly subjected to what any sane and rational person would consider total humiliation? Just look at this very thread for examples. How can anyone do this to themselves? What possible purpose can this serve in their lives?

When considering answers to these questions, I’m reminded of an incident that occurred many years ago at a bachelor party. I’m sure it’ll seem a propos of nothing, but please bear with me a minute. At this party I met a young man I’ll call Mark. Within a minute of our get-acquainted conversation, he launched into a long, detailed monologue about his high-school days when he and his friends got together each winter to play hockey on the frozen cranberry bogs of southeastern Massachusetts. They styled themselves “The Boys from the Bogs,” and they played with such diligence and fervor that after a while they could easily defeat their less-obsessed peers – successful enough, in fact, to convince themselves that they might actually be as good as the professionals they religiously followed on TV. “Our style was just perfect for the NHL” insisted Mark. “We played physical and didn’t worry about all the fancy [stuff],” which I suspect meant they made up for their lack of skill and finesse by slamming into each other a lot.

Mark told his story with a great deal of animation and enjoyment. The excitement in his eyes and gesticulations, the way he repeated the name “The Boys from the Bogs” slowly, as if savoring its alliterative resonance and the memories it evoked, made it obvious that he was retelling what in all likelihood were the happiest years of his life.

Eventually the Boys graduated high school and went their separate ways. Mark found himself in California, where he happened to see in the newspaper that a local minor league hockey team was holding tryouts. Here, it would seem, was his big chance, an opportunity to demonstrate the skills he had so carefully honed on the frozen bogs back home. So he gathered up his equipment, got ready to go to the tryout – and didn’t. Something held him back; he never went to that tryout or any other, and by the time I met him years later, Mark was working as a guard at a prison for the criminally insane (where, one may presume, his board-checking ability may have finally found some practical application).

“I should have gone” Mark told me. “I don’t know why I didn’t.” But I think I do, or at least can hazard a guess: It wasn’t worth the risk. True, a tryout was the only possible way an unknown like Mark was ever going to take his rightful place among his hockey-playing heroes. But at some level, he must have known that there was a good chance he and his fellow Boys had been deluding themselves all along, that they weren’t really professional caliber, and that the tryout would end in failure. So Mark weighed the possibilities, and in the end concluded it just wasn’t worth it – it was better to keep his fantasy alive, even if it meant never actually realizing his dreams. He preferred not knowing.

I think people who believe in conspiracy theories often follow the same model as Mark and his friends. They want, perhaps need to believe in a particular CT (and again, why they have this desire/need is another question entirely). So they buy into the CT, repeat its mantas, doggedly insist they believe it – but never, ever really want to find out for certain whether or not it is actually true. Because if they did, then like Mark their little fantasy world might evaporate. So CTers spend their time “just asking questions” for which they have no interest in learning the answers. The questions are enough, because as long as they remain willfully ignorant of the answers, they can convince themselves that their CT is viable, that the matter is still open to debate. From their ignorance they derive purpose and meaning, and it must be preserved at all costs.

Of course, the CTers who come here to the JREF forum take this one step further. It’s as if Mark and the Boys showed up at an NHL practice and heckled the pros, shouting “You guys are playing all wrong. We could kick your ass out there!” “Well, come on down and show us” we might reply. Of course, these CTers will never really “take the ice” against us; they just keep repeating the same old tired, utterly debunked crap, ignoring the mountains of contrary evidence we spoon feed them. And then, in their crowning achievement of denial, they smugly proclaim victory.

I suppose the CTers who come to this forum do perhaps deserve a bit of credit for representing the somewhat bolder elements of their communities in that they are at least willing to enter into the arena. Unfortunately, their courage only seems to extend that far, and no further. They always remain in the stands, heckling from behind the safety of the glass, never willing to venture onto the ice to engage in serious, honest debate. Instead, like the erstwhile Boys from the Bogs, they have chosen to preserve their little fantasy world, forever living in a past that never really was.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Why people believe in CTs is a very complex issue, for which whole books could no doubt be written. But I think that even before we can begin to tackle that question, we need to address a more fundamental one: how can people believe in CTs? By what mental mechanism do they continue to support an idea that is so obviously untrue, that defies all evidence and logic and reason? And even more perplexing from the viewpoint of the JREF forum, why do some CTers come here of all places, in what for them must seem the heart of enemy territory, to be repeatedly subjected to what any sane and rational person would consider total humiliation? Just look at this very thread for examples. How can anyone do this to themselves? What possible purpose can this serve in their lives?

When considering answers to these questions, I’m reminded of an incident that occurred many years ago at a bachelor party. I’m sure it’ll seem a propos of nothing, but please bear with me a minute. At this party I met a young man I’ll call Mark. Within a minute of our get-acquainted conversation, he launched into a long, detailed monologue about his high-school days when he and his friends got together each winter to play hockey on the frozen cranberry bogs of southeastern Massachusetts. They styled themselves “The Boys from the Bogs,” and they played with such diligence and fervor that after a while they could easily defeat their less-obsessed peers – successful enough, in fact, to convince themselves that they might actually be as good as the professionals they religiously followed on TV. “Our style was just perfect for the NHL” insisted Mark. “We played physical and didn’t worry about all the fancy [stuff],” which I suspect meant they made up for their lack of skill and finesse by slamming into each other a lot.

Mark told his story with a great deal of animation and enjoyment. The excitement in his eyes and gesticulations, the way he repeated the name “The Boys from the Bogs” slowly, as if savoring its alliterative resonance and the memories it evoked, made it obvious that he was retelling what in all likelihood were the happiest years of his life.

Eventually the Boys graduated high school and went their separate ways. Mark found himself in California, where he happened to see in the newspaper that a local minor league hockey team was holding tryouts. Here, it would seem, was his big chance, an opportunity to demonstrate the skills he had so carefully honed on the frozen bogs back home. So he gathered up his equipment, got ready to go to the tryout – and didn’t. Something held him back; he never went to that tryout or any other, and by the time I met him years later, Mark was working as a guard at a prison for the criminally insane (where, one may presume, his board-checking ability may have finally found some practical application).

“I should have gone” Mark told me. “I don’t know why I didn’t.” But I think I do, or at least can hazard a guess: It wasn’t worth the risk. True, a tryout was the only possible way an unknown like Mark was ever going to take his rightful place among his hockey-playing heroes. But at some level, he must have known that there was a good chance he and his fellow Boys had been deluding themselves all along, that they weren’t really professional caliber, and that the tryout would end in failure. So Mark weighed the possibilities, and in the end concluded it just wasn’t worth it – it was better to keep his fantasy alive, even if it meant never actually realizing his dreams. He preferred not knowing.

I think people who believe in conspiracy theories often follow the same model as Mark and his friends. They want, perhaps need to believe in a particular CT (and again, why they have this desire/need is another question entirely). So they buy into the CT, repeat its mantas, doggedly insist they believe it – but never, ever really want to find out for certain whether or not it is actually true. Because if they did, then like Mark their little fantasy world might evaporate. So CTers spend their time “just asking questions” for which they have no interest in learning the answers. The questions are enough, because as long as they remain willfully ignorant of the answers, they can convince themselves that their CT is viable, that the matter is still open to debate. From their ignorance they derive purpose and meaning, and it must be preserved at all costs.

Of course, the CTers who come here to the JREF forum take this one step further. It’s as if Mark and the Boys showed up at an NHL practice and heckled the pros, shouting “You guys are playing all wrong. We could kick your ass out there!” “Well, come on down and show us” we might reply. Of course, these CTers will never really “take the ice” against us; they just keep repeating the same old tired, utterly debunked crap, ignoring the mountains of contrary evidence we spoon feed them. And then, in their crowning achievement of denial, they smugly proclaim victory.

I suppose the CTers who come to this forum do perhaps deserve a bit of credit for representing the somewhat bolder elements of their communities in that they are at least willing to enter into the arena. Unfortunately, their courage only seems to extend that far, and no further. They always remain in the stands, heckling from behind the safety of the glass, never willing to venture onto the ice to engage in serious, honest debate. Instead, like the erstwhile Boys from the Bogs, they have chosen to preserve their little fantasy world, forever living in a past that never really was.

Nominated.

[JihadJane]

Ah, CT delusions in action again.

Is Daniel Ellsberg now a CTer in your funny little world? :)

I am beginning to think you are completely immune to logic and reason but I'll have one more go and reasoning with you




You have been given two substantive answers, three times in a row - you ignoring the facts are not going to change the reality that you have been shown two examples of your insane beliefs. This is a typical woo tactic: try to completely ignore everything that shows you for who you are. I'll just keep copy and pasting it over and over, you can't hide from the truth about your insane beliefs:

My "insane beliefs" are not the topic of my question to you which very specifically asks you for evidence, from this thread, of my alleged belief in "fantastical world-wide conspiracies".



Here are some more of your delusional statements:
The majority of the second or third hand information about the plot in the 911 Commission Report is referenced to KSM.

My statement should have included the other tortured information providers.

The CIA destroyed the recordings of his "interrogations" but have confessed to torturing him.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4310380#post4310380

True.

The Commission's use "information" derived from the edited transcripts of CIA interrogations is just one illustration of why the 911 Commission had zero chance of investigating, let alone uncovering, any US complicity in the attacks.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4313443#post4313443

Another true statement.

We could go on and on, but everyone knows your the epitome of CT delusion.

You stated that my posts on this thread indicated my belief in "fantastical world-wide conspiracies". These examples are not from this thread.

Please explain, however, how do these examples would demonstrate a belief in "fantastical world-wide conspiracies"?


Denial is a state of being for you, Jihad.

Are you now claiming to have psychic powas?

Where is it? I've only quoted back to you three times now the proof of your belief in "fantastical world-wide conspiracies." That you choose to ignore this reality only further marginalizes any chance you ever had of being taken seriously (not that this chance was all that large to begin with).

You have offered no proof at all. The post you offer does not demonstrate what you apparently believe it does. You simply extrapolate from it to make it look to yourself like it does. There's nothing I can do about that. I wonder if you have considered the possibility that it may be you who is delusional. It seems that way to me.


Jihad continues with delusional conversations that never occurred.

The conversation is there for anyone to read. That you deny it is very strange.


Wrong. Believing that a major media congolmerate with world-wide reach is a mouthpiece for a political institution is indeed 100% evidence of a belief in a fantastical world-wide conspiracy.

Rubbish. I find it hard to believe that you don't know this is illogical rubbish but apparently you don't.



Please provide evidence for this fantastical claim - but you won't because its only a delusion.

On another thread, I have provided examples of the New York Times' reporting of the Venezuelan coup against Chavez as illustrations of its MO. Its faithful parroting of the fraudulent "War on Terror" narrative is another good example.


http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4916815#post4916815
You attempting to deflect the multiple examples against you have failed.

This post does not demonstrate a belief in "fantastical world-wide conspiracies". Furthermore it was posted after your assertion.



Another Jihad lie! Secret plans /= conspiracy! Really, Jihad, its beginning to get pathetic. The article - as with the other pieces of media that even you have cited - have noted again and again that there was no "secret death squad" and that the thing was a CIA idea which was scrapped from the beginning.

What makes you believe that the article is authoritative, truthful and comprehensive?

It appears very inconclusive to me, littered with expressions of "No comment" from the various players.




Note to observers on Jihad's attempt to deflect here:
This is a classical CT propaganda method. Although there is endless evidence that Jihad holds as true powerful delusions involving world-wide conspiracies that are fantastical in nature, shewill claim every thing cited against her is somehow perfectly normal. And this shows how powerful CT delusions can be.

The goal is to deflect the argument into semantics in order to avoid the real topic of Jihad's delusions





Note to observers!: I hope you are able to exercise independent judgement in the face of Lightindarkness's energetic barrage!

Note to Lightindarkness: I do not believe in fantastical world-wide conspiracies. Calling me a "liar" all you like doesn't change this fact. You have provided no evidence to support your assertion, just a lot of sideways noise.

It has been useful to me to pursue the topic because I know the truth about what I believe whereas the truth about other topics we have discussed can be harder to discern. I now understand you better.

To me "fantastical world-wide conspiracies" implies world-wide conspiracies such as the alleged New World Order conspiracy or the Illuminati, not alleged propaganda from the a US newspaper :). I suspect that this is also what you had in mind when you first made your rash assertion.

As far I can see, all your posts, which invariably wonder off into irrelevant generalizations and shrill personal attacks, have been deflections to avoid facing the reality that your specific assertion that I believe in "fantastical world-wide conspiracies" is not supported by facts.

Our conversation has provided an interesting insight into your bullying and manipulative psychology, one shared by an unpleasant subgroup of "debunking" posters on this forum.

I wonder if you will ever be able to put your ego to one side and calmly contemplate jakestele's insightful list:


Most of what you are saying is…

Argument from Arrogant Assumption
Argument from Omnicient Absolute
Argument from Hard line fundamentalism
Argument from Herd mentality
Argument from illusory superiority
Argument from Impudence

…to name but a few.



Perhaps you could take a few days off from your recently developed "CTer" obsession and take some walks in nature to clear your mind.

Thanks.

Have a nice life.

[JihadJane]

Then pretty much every crime is a conspiracy. But as you know, that is not the topic for this forum. Look for "conspiracy theory", which is something completely different:

"A conspiracy theory is a term that has come to refer to any theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful Machiavellian conspirators such as a "secret team" or "shadow government" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

Be consistent with your definitions.

Some friendly advise:

Don't go quoting definitions from Wikipedia or Lightindarkness will laugh at you.

[LightinDarkness]

Is Daniel Ellsberg now a CTer in your funny little world? :)

I am beginning to think you are completely immune to logic and reason but I'll have one more go and reasoning with you

Poor Jihad. You still don't know what logic and reason is, but it is encouraging to hear that you think about the concepts. Heres a hint: you have yet to use any in this your latest attempt to troll and harass me.

It is amusing to watch you try to twist and take out of context what Daniel Ellsberg says to fit your conspiracy worldview :)


My "insane beliefs" are not the topic of my question to you which very specifically asks you for evidence, from this thread, of my alleged belief in "fantastical world-wide conspiracies".

Ah, another shining example of a classical JihadJane trolling method: make a big deal about a minor point in the thread, and then act like thats not the topic.

You have been provided 5 examples now, including 1 in this thread, which highlights your well known woo beliefs. At least two different posters have also noted your wild claims, and I have copy and pasted them back to you 4 times now. Your tactic of "denying reality and hoping it goes away" isn't going to work.


My statement should have included the other tortured information providers.


Except there were none.


True.

Another true statement.

They are only true statements in that they show your fantastical woo beliefs. They are, of course, completely false when it comes to them having any relationship to reality.


You stated that my posts on this thread indicated my belief in "fantastical world-wide conspiracies". These examples are not from this thread.

Actually, I provided 1 from this thread, which I have copied and pasted back to you 4 times now. This is another one of your trolling methods: in truth, it doesn't matter what you said in this thread. There is no debate you are a conspiracy theorist and strongly believe in your delusions. Your repeated attempts to argue this minor point are only a deflection tactic.


Please explain, however, how do these examples would demonstrate a belief in "fantastical world-wide conspiracies"?

Already done several times.


Are you now claiming to have psychic powas?

No, that would be you, Jihad.


You have offered no proof at all. The post you offer does not demonstrate what you apparently believe it does. You simply extrapolate from it to make it look to yourself like it does. There's nothing I can do about that. I wonder if you have considered the possibility that it may be you who is delusional. It seems that way to me.

As I have previously noted, no amount of you denying the facts is going to change that you have been provided the examples you requested and then debunked. I know this is a mental barrier you have to use to keep believing in your delusions - to simply deny all the evidence against you no matter how high it is stacked - but it doesn't work against those of us operating outside your delusional world.




The conversation is there for anyone to read. That you deny it is very strange.

Still having made up conversations with yourself, I see.



Rubbish. I find it hard to believe that you don't know this is illogical rubbish but apparently you don't.

Another trolling tactic: When debunked, simply dismiss it without any explanation.


On another thread, I have provided examples of the New York Times' reporting of the Venezuelan coup against Chavez as illustrations of its MO. Its faithful parroting of the fraudulent "War on Terror" narrative is another good example.

Except that its not a good example at all . Nothing you have provided has offered any evidence that the NYT is a "mouthpiece of the Bush administration" because its not, and never has been.


This post does not demonstrate a belief in "fantastical world-wide conspiracies". Furthermore it was posted after your assertion.

You denying reality doesn't make the truth any different.


What makes you believe that the article is authoritative, truthful and comprehensive?

It appears very inconclusive to me, littered with expressions of "No comment" from the various players.


Appeal to ignorance fallacy.



Note to observers!: I hope you are able to exercise independent judgement in the face of Lightindarkness's energetic barrage!

Note to Lightindarkness: I do not believe in fantastical world-wide conspiracies. Calling me a "liar" all you like doesn't change this fact. You have provided no evidence to support your assertion, just a lot of sideways noise.

Thank you for providing more stunning examples of your failure to use logic, reason, or critical thinking. The more you make posts like this, the more you are exposed for who you are - which is why you are very wise to try to avoid making more posts on this.


It has been useful to me to pursue the topic because I know the truth about what I believe whereas the truth about other topics we have discussed can be harder to discern. I now understand you better.

More proof of your delusions. You trolled this topic hoping you would be able to do your usual one line snipping and not get called out on it, but now you have been roundly debunked and dismissed, and now you are on the run.


To me "fantastical world-wide conspiracies" implies world-wide conspiracies such as the alleged New World Order conspiracy or the Illuminati, not alleged propaganda from the a US newspaper :). I suspect that this is also what you had in mind when you first made your rash assertion.

Another failure to use logic or reason on your part. Anyone who believes a INTERNATIONAL MEDIA SOURCE (the New York Times is not US only - the fact that you stated this shows how little you know about the world) is a mouthpiece for a political institution would be the very definition of a fantastical world-wide conspiracy.

You have failed again.


As far I can see, all your posts, which invariably wonder off into irrelevant generalizations and shrill personal attacks, have been deflections to avoid facing the reality that your specific assertion that I believe in "fantastical world-wide conspiracies" is not supported by facts.

Of course the facts are that no one cares as far as you can see, because your ability to sustain your self delusions in face of all the facts makes your opinions really quite worthless.


Our conversation has provided an interesting insight into your bullying and manipulative psychology, one shared by an unpleasant subgroup of "debunking" posters on this forum.

Your trolling has provided another insight into your use of personal attacks, bullying, manipulation, and complete abandon of logic/reason/critical thinking. This is shared by most of our resident woos, inclding you.


I wonder if you will ever be able to put your ego to one side and calmly contemplate jakestele's insightful list:

I wonder if you will ever be able to put your delusions to one side and calmly contemplate the facts without using out of context quotes?


Perhaps you could take a few days off from your recently developed "CTer" obsession and take some walks in nature to clear your mind.

Perhaps you could go outside and abandon your delusions and stop getting so enraged and hysterical about being debunked.

Thanks.


Have a nice life.

Don't worry, I'll be here debunking your delusions every single step of the way. :)

[LightinDarkness]

Some friendly advise:

Don't go quoting definitions from Wikipedia or Lightindarkness will laugh at you.

Some friendly advise:

Don't go around using logic or reason or JihadJane will troll you.

Jihad, I only laugh at your abuse of Wikipedia.

[LightinDarkness]

Enjoyed your posts, LightInDarkness. All is not in vain..

Thank you. It does sometimes feel that way. When all the logic and evidence points one way and we have our resident CTers still clinging to something that has been so completely debunked, it can get frustrating.


On a separate note but in the same vain, I would like to thank the four JREF posters who have contacted me and thanked me for debunking Jihad. I know its something that most people don't bother with anymore after seeing her total denial of the facts but I appreciate the sentiments.

[LightinDarkness]

Eirik has already debunked you on this, but just in case you didn't get it (and you probably won't):

**** Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.

No, you are wrong. World Com, Bernie, Aurthur Anderson…oh, and how could I forget; Ennron, are all conspiracies. I will agree that most are a small number of people, a cabal, if you will, due to the need for secrecy.

This is sheer brilliance. Did you know that committing a crime is necessary, but not sufficient, to be a criminal conspiracy? And that not all conspiracies are criminal conspiracies? This is also a logic 101 thing that you should probably brush up on - please go read about "necessary and sufficient" from a college logic textbook and get back to us.

Of the list you have provided, only Madoff was a conspiracy. None of the others were. Incompetent accounting is not a conspiracy.


You’re problem is that you come across like a Dark Feudal Lord ruling over your digital fiefdom.

I am sorry you get so enraged and hysterical over the facts, but I cannot help that.



Most of what you are saying is…

Argument from Arrogant Assumption
Argument from Omnicient Absolute
Argument from Hard line fundamentalism
Argument from Herd mentality
Argument from illusory superiority
Argument from Impudence

…to name but a few.

You should hear yourself, laying down the law of the land as though you had been elected Sheriff.
You’ve put up “Wanted, Dead or Alive’ posters all over this forum.

I suggested a puppy because he will teach you how to smile and laugh again.

Yawn. I am sad to see that instead of learning from your egregious use of logical fallacies, you have acted like a child and simply engaged in ad hominem attacks (also a fallacy, by the way). By the way, in the future, if you are going to act hysterical over being pointed out that you are wrong you should not go outside first.

The more you rant and act hysterical like this, the more evidence you provide of how wrong you are. Do continue.

[Mac53]

First off, you use the words 'almost always fail' and "they are extremely small". You are making some black and white assumptions that you don't know. You're only going by what you hear about. Bernie Madoff (sp) was a conspiracy, World Com, Aurthur Anderson accounting, etc.
are all conspiracies a number of which involved more people than 'extremely small'.

To think that all are small and all will get exposed is naive thinking.

By the way, I have noticed on this thread and others that you are a very angry person. You show a surprising degree to truculence and belligerence. You should get a puppy so you can learn how to lighten up things.

I will second that. He goes so off topic, give general arguments. And spends most of his argument on what he thinks of you. You may or may not want to argue with someone who is going ot spend more time trying ot personally attack someone who labels themselves or looks like a CT.

[Mac53]

Some friendly advise:

Don't go quoting definitions from Wikipedia or Lightindarkness will laugh at you.

He linked as a source wiki. It was to do with the vaccinations thing. ebunkign the "anti Vax Hoax".

It's funny how he uses Wiki then he laughs at you.


I also love how you to are arguing on the basis of the definition of a word.

Why is it that all my threads that involve this guy end up hijacked into his belief about CTs? Perhaps angry people seek out fights and create drama?

[Stellafane]

...Why is it that all my threads that involve this guy end up hijacked into his belief about CTs?...

Well, to be fair this thread is about why people believe in CTs. So I hardly think it's "hijacking" to discuss one's thoughts about CTs in it.

[LightinDarkness]

I will second that. He goes so off topic, give general arguments. And spends most of his argument on what he thinks of you. You may or may not want to argue with someone who is going ot spend more time trying ot personally attack someone who labels themselves or looks like a CT.

More personal insults from Mac53. I am glad to see you are joining up with the boards CTers to show who you really are.

Still waiting for you to provide a claim instead of whining about everyone else and insulting me.

[eirik]

Some friendly advise:

Don't go quoting definitions from Wikipedia or Lightindarkness will laugh at you.

Do you think there is something wrong with the definition? Something it does not cover? All I'm saying, you should be consistent with your use of words.

A theory of conspiracy is not the same as a conspiracy theory.

[eirik]

He linked as a source wiki. It was to do with the vaccinations thing. ebunkign the "anti Vax Hoax".

It's funny how he uses Wiki then he laughs at you.


I also love how you to are arguing on the basis of the definition of a word.

Why is it that all my threads that involve this guy end up hijacked into his belief about CTs? Perhaps angry people seek out fights and create drama?

I don't understand what you are saying here. Anti vax? Would you clarify? We agree that we can't get an authorative definition of an expression as "conspiracy theory". But it has clearly not the same meaning as the legal expression "conspiracy", which does have a authorative definition.

To mix these two is a fallacy. Be consistent.

[Mac53]

More personal insults from Mac53. I am glad to see you are joining up with the boards CTers to show who you really are.

Still waiting for you to provide a claim instead of whining about everyone else and insulting me.

Still waiting for you to read my post and realize i deny CTs. What is it with you?

You jump on every single post made and argue it. Then make assumptions i go with the CTs? WTF. My opinion of you and happens to be the same as what the other guys thinks.

That has nothing what so ever to do with me joining forces. Is this some sort of battle for you?

Just stop. Realize i am after information so i can do research. And i'll jsut repeat this til lyou get it through your head.

i foudn the 9/11 resources you talked about. Andi used them and agree with the evidence. Many thigns i did not know. Good stuff.

So CT belive that 9/11 wasn't an inside job then? Is this what your saying That everyone who belvies 9/11 is a CT? Whether CT or Official Claim?
/joke.

Thanks. Still not a CT, only researching. Some people havn't had the knowledge you have. So stop jumping on my balls for things i don't know or understand.

[LightinDarkness]

Mac, I challenge you to make one post responding to me where you do not hurl personal insults, make things up, or cry about being a victim. Or just not reply to every post I make with all the above.

Just one. The more you go on with this the more I am beginning to think I am being trolled. This is one test a troll cannot pass.

Frankly, I think your whole "Im a skeptic..oh wait I'm not let me demand you debunk 9/11 and vaccine woo...oh wait now I am a skeptic again" is just a game and that you will next demand we summarily debunk some other area of woo. But I would love you to prove me wrong. It would be great if you decided to embrace logic and critical thinking.

[eirik]

I will second that. He goes so off topic, give general arguments. And spends most of his argument on what he thinks of you. You may or may not want to argue with someone who is going ot spend more time trying ot personally attack someone who labels themselves or looks like a CT.

Mac53, IMO this is a pretty insulting post. I too will question your motives here with this. It is relatively clear who began with semantics and derailing here. LightInDarkness is only saying what must be said about the issue, and I find it mostly factual and educational. Personal attacks just spices it up, when someone clearly is being both irrational and insincere. Thsi works both ways.

If you want to apologize, or you feel this post does not represent you, you should retract.

[JihadJane]

He linked as a source wiki. It was to do with the vaccinations thing. ebunkign the "anti Vax Hoax".

It's funny how he uses Wiki then he laughs at you.


I also love how you to are arguing on the basis of the definition of a word.

Why is it that all my threads that involve this guy end up hijacked into his belief about CTs? Perhaps angry people seek out fights and create drama?

Once this funny fellow has labelled you a "CTer" then he doesn't have to listen to you anymore because it means everything you say is rubbish. What an easy life! It's a gang mentality, the mark of the devil - Either you're with us or against us. He’s got it real bad!


Do you think there is something wrong with the definition? Something it does not cover? All I'm saying, you should be consistent with your use of words.

A theory of conspiracy is not the same as a conspiracy theory.

I wasn't commenting on the definition but on the fact that Lightindrakness won't be laughing at you (or himself) for using wikipedia as a reference whereas, when I use it, he'll count that as another point against me. This makes makes sense because his arguments are mostly ideologically rather than factually driven.

Be aware, though, that the term "Conspiracy Theorist" is, primarily, a propaganda term, a shorthand used to demean and neutalize those who seek to expose malfeasance.

I used to share the propagandistic understanding of the term (i.e. conspiracy theorists are all mad) until I heard UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair, very publicly label people who believed that the attack on Iraq was to do with oil as "conspiracy theorists". After that I began to wonder what else this supposed tribe of misfits might be right about.

Does Wikipedia explore this side of the term?



Mac53, IMO this is a pretty insulting post. I too will question your motives here with this. It is relatively clear who began with semantics and derailing here. LightInDarkness is only saying what must be said about the issue, and I find it mostly factual and educational. Personal attacks just spices it up, when someone clearly is being both irrational and insincere. Thsi works both ways.

If you want to apologize, or you feel this post does not represent you, you should retract.


Insulting or not, it is an accurate description of the unsavory, Lightindarkness MO, in my opinion.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Be aware, though, that the term "Conspiracy Theorist" is, primarily, a propaganda term, a shorthand used to demean and neutalize those who seek to expose malfeasance.
Kind of like "the Bush regime 911 narrative" :rolleyes:

Hypocrite.

[eirik]

JihadJane:
I used to share the propagandistic understanding of the term (i.e. conspiracy theorists are all mad) until I heard UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair, very publicly label people who believed that the attack on Iraq was to do with oil as "conspiracy theorists"

Do you have a source for this? I have not seen this before.

About wiki: I understand. Wiki is admittedly not a strong source in itself. But the good articles use good sources. I used it as a source of a useful definition of a common expression. Anyone is free to criticise it. I'm sure it has it's weaknesses, but I found it pretty functional./end derail

[LightinDarkness]

Once this funny fellow has labelled you a "CTer" then he doesn't have to listen to you anymore because it means everything you say is rubbish. What an easy life! It's a gang mentality, the mark of the devil - Either you're with us or against us. He’s got it real bad!

Jihad spouting more delusions that have no connection to reality. Conspiracy theorist means one who promotes theories that involve conspiracies. Its quite an accurate description of you, Mac's previously posts (that he has now retracted), and other resident wooists that we have on the board.

It couldn't be anymore of a unbiased and fair description. But because even conspiracy theorists know that they are lunatic fringe, they don't even want the most accurate description of them to be allowed.


I wasn't commenting on the definition but on the fact that Lightindrakness won't be laughing at you (or himself) for using wikipedia as a reference whereas, when I use it, he'll count that as another point against me. This makes makes sense because his arguments are mostly ideologically rather than factually driven.

JihadJane getting the facts wrong again as usual. Jihad is upset because when she uses Wikipedia out of context and gets called on it. There is nothing wrong with you using Wikipedia, Jihad, it was your laughable out of context definition of conspiracy theory that didn't fit with the one you pulled out of no where that I laughed at you.


Be aware, though, that the term "Conspiracy Theorist" is, primarily, a propaganda term, a shorthand used to demean and neutalize those who seek to expose malfeasance.

Its primarily a factual term used to describe people like JihadJane. That people like JihadJane tend to believe in CT propaganda and insane world-wide conspiracies makes them a CT, and it would be your beliefs that make you think the term has some sort of negative meaning.


I used to share the propagandistic understanding of the term (i.e. conspiracy theorists are all mad) until I heard UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair, very publicly label people who believed that the attack on Iraq was to do with oil as "conspiracy theorists". After that I began to wonder what else this supposed tribe of misfits might be right about.

Sadly for Jihad, people who believe the War in Iraq was a "war for oil" would indeed not only be wrong but be conspiracy theorists. Thats quite a accurate use of the term.

Of course, what happened in reality is that Jihads radical political hack ideologies got offended by being labeled conspiracy theorist, which is probably what contributed to you flying off the handle and believing in the rest of the woo you have spouted on here.


Insulting or not, it is an accurate description of the unsavory, Lightindarkness MO, in my opinion.

Jihad, your trolling MO is becoming so obvious it IS hilarious. You constantly show that you have nothing to back up your woo beliefs and instead choose to troll the people who debunk you.

[LightinDarkness]

Kind of like "the Bush regime 911 narrative" :rolleyes:

Hypocrite.

JihadJane, a hypocrite?


Why, UnlovedRebel, thats just a propaganda term used to demean Jihad's great and superior knowledge about the world really works. We sheeple can't possible understand her divine wisdom.

[UNLoVedRebel]

The lengths JihadJane goes to in order to save face is ridiculous. I used to screenshot things for her because I thought she was just a slow learner, then I realized she didn't want to learn. A few examples.
The haphazard examination of steel (which didn't happen at Fresh Kills but at scrap yards) was mostly carried out by a small team of volunteers who struggled against the speed of the desposal process.

35zZeNcIAZ8
Jihad refuses to accept what was in the video, so I screenshot it and quote it.
Since September the 11th, the official investigators have been combing the wreckage, looking for clues as to why the towers fell
http://i625.photobucket.com/albums/tt332/JREFImages/corley-1.jpg
More Jihad trying to save face.
The poll doesn't say anything about these men being "angry". That is your add-on spin.
http://i625.photobucket.com/albums/tt332/JREFImages/Howardscripps.jpg
More trutherisms, proof she is a de facto truther.
Really? I thought the entire buildings disintegrated. Yours is the same trick that NIST played - not bothereing to examine or explain the behaviour of the Towers after "collapse initiation".
http://i625.photobucket.com/albums/tt332/JREFImages/NIST.jpg
JihadJane calls trigonometry "guessing".
NIST's theory was largely derived from data guessed at from photos etc so it would be very strange if their theory were inconsistent with them.
http://i625.photobucket.com/albums/tt332/JREFImages/InwardBowing.jpg

[jakesteele]

LightinDarkness;4927484]The fact that you failed logic 101 and consider the use of logic "psuedo-skepticism" speaks for itself. Please continue to debunk yourself.


The fact that you haven’t even taken Psychology 101 and don’t realize that you practice pseudoskeptism (predetermined agenda to debunk rather than weigh and assess) as opposed to regular Skeptism (the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism) speaks volumes.

Please continue to project your shadow self

Logic only works when it’s objective, not when it’s your opinion cloaked in logic. You are making biased, bigoted interpretations of someones post and using it as a type of a Straw Man argument which then sets the stage for you to carpet bomb with Ad Hominen attacks. All of this is way to vent your spleen.

I would strongly suggest that you get a puppy and take some psychotherapy…oh, wait, let me guess. Psychotherapy has been debunked by the Great and Mighty Oz; therefore, there is no need for you to investigate for yourself.


It takes a pretty hysterical CTer to think using logic is propaganda. Truth hurting you a bit too much for comfort? :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]

For a guy who prides himself on being logical, objective, impartial, and open minded, you sling out a lot of hysterical Ad Hominen attacks

Is looking at yourself a bit too much for comfort? (shakes head while rolling eyes)


Jakesteele #33 - Conspiracies aren't just governments, Bernie Madoff was a conspiracy, Aruther Anderson accounting firm was a conspiracy. How many more like that are out there that we don't know?


**Light inDarkness #40 (response to Jake #33) - Argument from ignorance fallacy, classical CT propaganda line.

Jakesteele #44 (response to LightinDarkness #40
Argument from Ignoramus, a classical PsuedoSkeptic propaganda line.

What I am doing is a psychological technique called “Mirror Imaging”. You sling some ******** out and you think it’s righteous, but when the other guy slings it back at you, you start crying foul.

[jakesteele]

I wonder if you will ever be able to put your ego to one side and calmly contemplate jakestele's insightful list:



Perhaps you could take a few days off from your recently developed "CTer" obsession and take some walks in nature to clear your mind.

Thanks.

Have a nice life.
[/QUOTE]

You don't get it, do you? It seems to go right over your head like a 747. One of the classical traits of a PseudoSkeptic is to immediately paint with a broad stroke of the brush anyone who even slightly digresses from the party line as woo/CTer/Truther. Pseudos need group affirmation constantly so as to maintain the sturctural integrity of their Cognitive Closure when it comes to emotionally charged area like woo and CT.

Now, I am going to clarify something for the record. When I say what I just said, it applies almost exclusively to woo/Ct areas. If we're talking about String Theory, Quantum Gravity, etc., then a pseudo becomes, for the most part, a regular skeptic.

Just relax, take some deep breaths and/or take a time-out.



with them and dares to speak heresy toward the official line. I am obsessed about pseudoskeptism

[LightinDarkness]

Yawn. Yet another hysterical conspiracy theorist on the run, jakesteele - you really haven't offered anything of value. Just the typical personal insults devoid of evidence and trolling.

I am sorry that you have not come figured out how to respond when your woo is debunked except by - well - going hysterical. Please calm down. I know having your worldview debunked is difficult, but getting this enraged and using terms you don't understand (like your hilarious attempt to explain pseudoskepticism) will not change reality. Maybe this is your coping mechanism - instead of just admitting you are wrong and moving on you feel that if you simply dismiss everyone who debunks you as a pseudoskeptic that you can retain some of your woo.

The lack of knowledge you show about logic is astounding. That you blew up and flew off the handle when I pointed out that you are doing nothing but using the argument from ignorance fallacy is a testament to your maturity.

Your amount of projection is kind of scary here. Getting therapy for your issues isn't anything to be ashamed of, and neither is mental illness. I am serious here and am not trying to insult in any way: please seek professional help.

Finally, please learn how to format. I mean I can tell I'm dealing with a kid here, but it really isn't that hard and it makes reading all your personal insults much easier.

[jakesteele]

LightinDarkness;4928954]More personal insults from Mac53. I am glad to see you are joining up with the boards CTers to show who you really are.


You have got to be ******** me!! (jaw drops:jaw-dropp

Talk about the Pot calling the Kettle black. You can go back in these two CT threads and follow the posts and you will find exactly where you started insulting people and exhibiting the rude emotional behavior that you would expect from a 14 yr. old going through puberty. Denialism cloaked in Scientism.

[LightinDarkness]

More personal insults from jacksteele - talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Really that's all you've got, isn't it jack? Trying to project away from all your failures.

Twoofer cloaked in the robes of ignorance. One day you will grow up.

[LightinDarkness]

The lengths JihadJane goes to in order to save face is ridiculous. I used to screenshot things for her because I thought she was just a slow learner, then I realized she didn't want to learn. A few examples.

Now, Unlovedrebel, you don't honestly expect Jihad to answer you do you? You've done that naughty thing again of providing evidence - it puts the twoofers on the run!

[eirik]

JakeSteele, you do realize that the entire skeptic community opposes the ct's in question? You do understand that personal attacks don't flaw logic?

The difference:
Fallacy: You are wrong because you are an idiot
Colorful non-fallacy: You are wrong beacause[insert fact], AND by the way, you are an idiot

As far as I can tell, LID in this thread is doing the second, which is sort of entertaining. But Jack, it hurts your case that you and others don't adress the facts presented, just the personal attacks. It does look like you are deflecting. One could make a good case that you ARE in fact the things ascribed to you.

[LightinDarkness]

As far as I can tell, jack flew off the handle and got hysterical on me when I pointed out his logical fallacy which he was using to defend CTs (argument from ignorance).

I try to stay out of direct personal attacks (I have to in order to stay here - JihadJane goes around reporting every post I make regardless of content hoping she'll get a hit eventually), although in this case I did openly lament the lack of logic and reason I was seeing (the "colorful" part as Erik described it). I did that after the first few rounds of personal attacks and enraged responses because it was getting to be, honestly, pretty sad. No amount of presenting any evidence to jack did anything but result in enraged personal attacks

This back and forth hasn't offered anything constructive at all, and pages later I am still awaiting for jack to explain how his argument from ignorance fallacy lends support to CTs. Since I am likely never to receive an answer no matter what I do, I'm just adding him to the ignore list. Farewell, my CT friend!

[jakesteele]

Eirik has already debunked you on this, but just in case you didn't get it (and you probably won't):



[QUOTE]This is sheer brilliance. Did you know that committing a crime is necessary, but not sufficient, to be a criminal conspiracy? And that not all conspiracies are criminal conspiracies? This is also a logic 101 thing that you should probably brush up on - please go read about "necessary and sufficient" from a college logic textbook and get back to us.

Of the list you have provided, only Madoff was a conspiracy. None of the others were. Incompetent accounting is not a conspiracy.

You’ve got to be kidding, right? It wasn’t incompetent accounting, it was intentional, deceptive fraudulent accounting. Fraudulent accounting is a crime and a conspiracy if two or more are involved. It’s called “cooking the books”.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron

…it was revealed that its reported financial condition was sustained substantially by institutionalized, systematic, and creatively planned accounting fraud, known as the

accounting managers Betty Vinson and Troy Normand (both pleading guilty to conspiracy and securities fraud on October 10, 2002


"Enron scandal". Enron has since become a popular symbol of willful corporate fraud and corruption.

…Enron filed for bankruptcy on December 2, 2001. In addition, the scandal caused the dissolution of Arthur Andersen, which at the time was one of the world's top accounting firms. The firm was found guilty of obstruction of justice in 2002 for destroying documents related to the Enron audit and was forced to stop auditing public companies.

***************************************
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Andersen#Enron_scandal

On June 15, 2002, Andersen was convicted of obstruction of justice for shredding documents related to its audit of Enron, resulting in the Enron scandal. Nancy Temple (Andersen Legal Dept.) and David Duncan (Lead Partner for the Enron account) were cited as the responsible managers in this scandal as they had given the order to shred relevant documents. Since the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission does not allow convicted felons to audit public companies, the firm agreed to surrender its CPA licenses and its right to practice

************************************************** **
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Com#Accounting_scandals

On March 15, 2005 Bernard Ebbers was found guilty of all charges and convicted of fraud, conspiracy and filing false documents with regulators — all related to the $11 billion accounting scandal at the telecommunications company he founded. He was sentenced to 25 years in prison. Other former WorldCom officials charged with criminal penalties in relation to the company's financial misstatements include former CFO Scott Sullivan (entered a guilty plea on March 2, 2004 to one count each of securities fraud, conspiracy to commit securities fraud, and filing false statements[6]), former controller David Myers (pleaded guilty to securities fraud, conspiracy to commit securities fraud, and filing false statements on September 27, 2002 [7]), former accounting director Buford Yates (pleaded guilty to conspiracy and fraud charges on October 7, 2002[8]), and former accounting managers Betty Vinson and Troy Normand (both pleading guilty to conspiracy and securities fraud on October 10, 2002 [9]).


Yawn. I am sad to see that instead of learning from your egregious use of logical fallacies, you have acted like a child and simply engaged in ad hominem attacks (also a fallacy, by the way).

You don’t have a good sense of irony, do you? I am mocking you when I use the phrase, “Argument from…” What I have listed are more along the lines of cognitive biases, or, psychological fallacies, if you will. The above is the short list, by the way. If you care to go down the list point by point, I will show you where you have been doing this without being consciously aware you are doing it.

[UNLoVedRebel]

If you don't know how to use the quote function, don't try.

[LightinDarkness]

If you don't know how to use the quote function, don't try.

$5 says its another hysterical post flying off the handle at me! I don't know, hes on ignore :)

Hes going to ride his argument from ignorance fallacy forever. You know the quality of the CT your dealing with when the proof of fantastical CTs is based on such reasoning.

[UNLoVedRebel]

$5 says its another hysterical post flying off the handle at me! I don't know, hes on ignore :)

Hes going to ride his argument from ignorance fallacy forever. You know the quality of the CT your dealing with when the proof of fantastical CTs is based on such reasoning.

He's not on my ignore list, but I don't read his posts because the quotes are such a mess. I can't figure out if those are his words or someone else's.

[jakesteele]

Just a quick recap of LightinDarkness’s mindset.

Let’s see. LightinDarkness is accusing other people of ad hominem attacks and in this thread he starts out on post #11 with an inappropriate ad hominem attack on JihadJane: “Real conspiracies are the best proof against the mythology CTers like Jihad believe in.”

And in the CT 1000 reasons thread, he starts out ad homineming Mac53 on post #19: “It appears as though Mac53 is still embracing the woo...”. Up until that point neither Mac nor Jihad had done anything in the way of personal attacks to provoke.

Now I ask you, is this the way a person who considers himself to be a rational, objective, logical, open-minded personwould present themselves? Obviously not. It appears that LightinDarkness is on a Jihad of his own.

Below are some of the many ad hominem/personal insult/characterizations that he has been hurling around all the while accusing other people of doing the same to him.

Jim Morrison of the Doors said it best in the title of his song: People are strange.

1. #11 - Real conspiracies are the best proof against the mythology CTers like Jihad believe in.#17 –
2. You haven't operated in reality for as long as you've been a CTer, but thanks for the laugh! Over here in reality I do get a kick out of your warped and distorted view of the world though.
3. “Whoops, yet another JihadJane claim that is wholly unsupported by the facts (well, that would be all your posts I guess).”
4. he fact that you choose to ignore this historical reality and believe in your fantastical world-wide conspiracies are your delusions, not mine.
5. JihadJane - exhibit number one of the CT movement. I can't think of a better person to show the CT attitude of being "in the know about whats REALLY going on" and above the rest of us. Please, do continue posting in the thread.
6. Would this be the same news you claim that can't be trusted? But when it fits your fantasy CT land, you suddenly do trust it? Another example of CT thinking!
7. But I'm sure you'll go on believing: the "Cheney assassination ring" woo because it fits your political propaganda leanings and enhances your CT worldview.
8. Or are you now admitting to being a liar among all the other offenses to critical thinking you commit here on a daily basis?
9. But not critical thinking when it comes to reality, as you've shown by your belief in conspiracy theories?
10. Your denial about the facts does not change anything. I am sorry you have deluded yourself.
11. Is it because you are in such denial about your embrace of fantastical fantasies, having no relationship from reality, that you feel the need to act hysterical and throw out baseless insults to back up your lies?
12. Jihad still in denial about her own made up definition.
13. Only your in personal delusions, not in reality. Excuse me while I go conspire to have breakfast.
14. What a surprise, the usual JihadJane response technique: ignore in total every single point that just debunked you and showed you what a fraud you are, and try to snipe with trolling comments. Oh well, not that I would expect any real contributions from you.
15. If only you would listen to your own rantings instead of believing your delusions.
16. Jihad code: I have absolutely nothing to say because I've been debunked, but let me try to get away with just trolling!

You've failed again.

17. I'm sorry you believe in your delusions so strongly that you ignore the facts, but this does not change the reality that you've been debunked.
18. Your last attempt was, as is in the tradition of everything else you post, a spectacular failure.
19. Here we go again: JihadJane ignoring multiple examples of her fantastical belief in conspiracies, which is what I asserted and proved (as did other posters).
20. Nice lie, but unfortunately your own posts betray you.
21. Now, the fact that you are ignoring these examples of you woo beliefs just shows that you have no idea how to explain them except to ignore them and hope no one else notices. Your fantastical conversation you think you had with me instead of the examples provided above just shows your more in love with delusions than previously thought.
22. Try again, Jihad. I'm still awaiting your substantive explanation of your belief in insane conspiracies and for examples of some of these real conspiracies that you believe are occurring. You've posted media articles where NO ONE says it was a conspiracy, with the exception of one of your propaganda talking point sources (commondreams.org, owned and subsidized by political hacks like yourself). An editorial offering 0 evidence may fit your delusions, but it isn't representative of reality.

Your failure rate: 100%. Still waiting.

23. Ah, CT delusions in action again.
24. You have been given two substantive answers, three times in a row - you ignoring the facts are not going to change the reality that you have been shown two examples of your insane beliefs. This is a typical woo tactic: try to completely ignore everything that shows you for who you are. I'll just keep copy and pasting it over and over, you can't hide from the truth about your insane beliefs:
25. Here are some more of your delusional statements:
26. We could go on and on, but everyone knows your the epitome of CT delusion.
27. Denial is a state of being for you, Jihad. Where is it? I've only quoted back to you three times now the proof of your belief in "fantastical world-wide conspiracies." That you choose to ignore this reality only further marginalizes any chance you ever had of being taken seriously (not that this chance was all that large to begin with).
28. More deflection. Its been quoted back to you multiple times. No more crying, whining, projection, and deflection Jihad. Own up to the facts.
29. Wrong. Believing that a major media congolmerate with world-wide reach is a mouthpiece for a political institution is indeed 100% evidence of a belief in a fantastical world-wide conspiracy.
30. The extract is an example of delusional thinking in action, which is why it is a perfect example of why you believe in fantastical world-wide conspiracies.
31. Another Jihad lie! Secret plans /= conspiracy! Really, Jihad, its beginning to get pathetic. The article - as with the other pieces of media that even you have cited - have noted again and again that there was no "secret death squad" and that the thing was a CIA idea which was scrapped from the beginning.
32. Note to observers on Jihad's attempt to deflect here:
This is a classical CT propaganda method. Although there is endless evidence that Jihad holds as true powerful delusions involving world-wide conspiracies that are fantastical in nature, shewill claim every thing cited against her is somehow perfectly normal. And this shows how powerful CT delusions can be.
33. Argument from ignorance fallacy, classical CT propaganda line.
34. It takes a pretty hysterical CTer to think using logic is propaganda. Truth hurting you a bit too much for comfort?
35. Poor Jihad. You still don't know what logic and reason is, but it is encouraging to hear that you think about the concepts. Heres a hint: you have yet to use any in this your latest attempt to troll and harass me.

It is amusing to watch you try to twist and take out of context what Daniel Ellsberg says to fit your conspiracy worldview

36. Ah, another shining example of a classical JihadJane trolling method: make a big deal about a minor point in the thread, and then act like thats not the topic.
37. They are only true statements in that they show your fantastical woo beliefs. They are, of course, completely false when it comes to them having any relationship to reality.
38. Actually, I provided 1 from this thread, which I have copied and pasted back to you 4 times now. This is another one of your trolling methods: in truth, it doesn't matter what you said in this thread. There is no debate you are a conspiracy theorist and strongly believe in your delusions. Your repeated attempts to argue this minor point are only a deflection tactic.
39. I know this is a mental barrier you have to use to keep believing in your delusions - to simply deny all the evidence against you no matter how high it is stacked - but it doesn't work against those of us operating outside your delusional world.
40. Still having made up conversations with yourself, I see.
41. Another trolling tactic: When debunked, simply dismiss it without any explanation.
42. Thank you for providing more stunning examples of your failure to use logic, reason, or critical thinking. The more you make posts like this, the more you are exposed for who you are - which is why you are very wise to try to avoid making more posts on this.
43. More proof of your delusions. You trolled this topic hoping you would be able to do your usual one line snipping and not get called out on it, but now you have been roundly debunked and dismissed, and now you are on the run.
44. Another failure to use logic or reason on your part. Anyone who believes a INTERNATIONAL MEDIA SOURCE (the New York Times is not US only - the fact that you stated this shows how little you know about the world) is a mouthpiece for a political institution would be the very definition of a fantastical world-wide conspiracy.
45. Of course the facts are that no one cares as far as you can see, because your ability to sustain your self delusions in face of all the facts makes your opinions really quite worthless.
46. Your trolling has provided another insight into your use of personal attacks, bullying, manipulation, and complete abandon of logic/reason/critical thinking. This is shared by most of our resident woos, inclding you.
47. Yawn. I am sad to see that instead of learning from your egregious use of logical fallacies, you have acted like a child and simply engaged in ad hominem attacks (also a fallacy, by the way). By the way, in the future, if you are going to act hysterical over being pointed out that you are wrong you should not go outside first.

The more you rant and act hysterical like this, the more evidence you provide of how wrong you are. Do continue.

48. More personal insults from Mac53. I am glad to see you are joining up with the boards CTers to show who you really are.

Still waiting for you to provide a claim instead of whining about everyone else and insulting me.

49. Jihad spouting more delusions that have no connection to reality. Conspiracy theorist means one who promotes theories that involve conspiracies. Its quite an accurate description of you, Mac's previously posts (that he has now retracted), and other resident wooists that we have on the board.

It couldn't be anymore of a unbiased and fair description. But because even conspiracy theorists know that they are lunatic fringe, they don't even want the most accurate description of them to be allowed.
Originally Posted by JihadJane
Be aware, though, that the term "Conspiracy Theorist" is, primarily, a propaganda term, a shorthand used to demean and neutalize those who seek to expose malfeasance.

50. Its primarily a factual term used to describe people like JihadJane. That people like JihadJane tend to believe in CT propaganda and insane world-wide conspiracies makes them a CT, and it would be your beliefs that make you think the term has some sort of negative meaning.
51. Sadly for Jihad, people who believe the War in Iraq was a "war for oil" would indeed not only be wrong but be conspiracy theorists. Thats quite a accurate use of the term.

Of course, what happened in reality is that Jihads radical political hack ideologies got offended by being labeled conspiracy theorist, which is probably what contributed to you flying off the handle and believing in the rest of the woo you have spouted on here.

52. Jihad, your trolling MO is becoming so obvious it IS hilarious. You constantly show that you have nothing to back up your woo beliefs and instead choose to troll the people who debunk you.
53. Why, UnlovedRebel, thats just a propaganda term used to demean Jihad's great and superior knowledge about the world really works. We sheeple can't possible understand her divine wisdom.
54. Yawn. Yet another hysterical conspiracy theorist on the run, jakesteele - you really haven't offered anything of value. Just the typical personal insults devoid of evidence and trolling.
55. Yawn. Yet another hysterical conspiracy theorist on the run, jakesteele - you really haven't offered anything of value. Just the typical personal insults devoid of evidence and trolling.

I am sorry that you have not come figured out how to respond when your woo is debunked except by - well - going hysterical. Please calm down. I know having your worldview debunked is difficult, but getting this enraged and using terms you don't understand (like your hilarious attempt to explain pseudoskepticism) will not change reality. Maybe this is your coping mechanism - instead of just admitting you are wrong and moving on you feel that if you simply dismiss everyone who debunks you as a pseudoskeptic that you can retain some of your woo.

The lack of knowledge you show about logic is astounding. That you blew up and flew off the handle when I pointed out that you are doing nothing but using the argument from ignorance fallacy is a testament to your maturity.

Your amount of projection is kind of scary here. Getting therapy for your issues isn't anything to be ashamed of, and neither is mental illness. I am serious here and am not trying to insult in any way: please seek professional help.

Finally, please learn how to format. I mean I can tell I'm dealing with a kid here, but it really isn't that hard and it makes reading all your personal insults much easier.

56. More personal insults from jacksteele - talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Really that's all you've got, isn't it jack? Trying to project away from all your failures.

Twoofer cloaked in the robes of ignorance. One day you will grow up.

57. Hes going to ride his argument from ignorance fallacy forever. You know the quality of the CT your dealing with when the proof of fantastical CTs is based on such reasoning.

Now bear in mind, the above are only for this thread. I’m not even keeping track of “more of the same” in the ‘CT 1000 reasons’ thread.

It doesn’t speak too highly of someone’s character if they choose to back that action.

[jakesteele]

As far as I can tell, jack flew off the handle and got hysterical on me when I pointed out his logical fallacy which he was using to defend CTs (argument from ignorance).

I try to stay out of direct personal attacks (I have to in order to stay here - JihadJane goes around reporting every post I make regardless of content hoping she'll get a hit eventually), although in this case I did openly lament the lack of logic and reason I was seeing (the "colorful" part as Erik described it). I did that after the first few rounds of personal attacks and enraged responses because it was getting to be, honestly, pretty sad. No amount of presenting any evidence to jack did anything but result in enraged personal attacks

This back and forth hasn't offered anything constructive at all, and pages later I am still awaiting for jack to explain how his argument from ignorance fallacy lends support to CTs. Since I am likely never to receive an answer no matter what I do, I'm just adding him to the ignore list. Farewell, my CT friend!

Oh, man! Don't do that, you're hurting my feelings. Besides, I was hoping we could go over these point by point:

Most of what you are saying is…

Argument from Arrogant Assumption
Argument from Omnicient Absolute
Argument from Hard line fundamentalism
Argument from Herd mentality
Argument from illusory superiority
Argument from Impudence

…to name but a few.

[JihadJane]

Thanks for your good work, jakesteele!

I especially liked the clarity of your defintions of skeptism and pseudoskeptism:

...you practice pseudoskeptism (predetermined agenda to debunk rather than weigh and assess) as opposed to regular Skeptism (the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism)





JihadJane:


About wiki: I understand. Wiki is admittedly not a strong source in itself. But the good articles use good sources. I used it as a source of a useful definition of a common expression. Anyone is free to criticise it. I'm sure it has it's weaknesses, but I found it pretty functional./end derail



I wasn't criticizing your use of wikepedia - just pointing out the irony of LiD's selective contempt for it.

------------

Do you have a source for this? I have not seen this before.




Here is Tony Blair's oil "conspiracy theory" ruse, part of his dishonest campaign to launch an aggressive, illegal attack on Iraq:

"No, let me just deal with the oil thing because this is one of the ... we may be right or we may be wrong, I mean people have their different views about why we're doing this thing. But the oil conspiracy theory is honestly one of the most absurd when you analyse it."

- Tony Blair, 6 Feb 2003

'Iraq, oil and conspiracy theories'

http://www.democratsdiary.co.uk/2005/03/iraq-oil-and-conspiracy-theories.html

(The article includes an interesting discussion of some the insane conspiracy theories the warmongering Blair himself was promoting at the time.)

The article's conclusion echoes some of the discussion on/about this thread:

"The proposition that Iraq was invaded primarily because of its oil can hardly be described as a conspiracy theory since, unlike flimsy notions of a "WMD threat" or "humanitarian intervention", it is based on rational observations concerning matters of fact. But the reason that the Prime Minister and others try to push such talk to the margins of debate has less to do with rationality than with the need to make room for the self-serving chauvinistic slogans that politicians and their apologists must proclaim in order to justify warfare. That a decision which may have caused the deaths of over 100,000 civilians can be discussed with such casual disregard for the most basic facts should give you the true measure of our political culture."

----------------------
also:

Blair: Iraq oil claim is 'conspiracy theory'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/jan/15/foreignpolicy.uk



Conspiracy Theory Slur

http://www.outsider-insight.org.uk/article.php?id=0051

[LightinDarkness]

Thanks for your good work, jakesteele!

I especially liked the clarity of your defintions of skeptism and pseudoskeptism:

You would like out of context and misappropriated definitions based on projection, wouldn't you?


I wasn't criticizing your use of wikepedia - just pointing out the irony of LiD's selective contempt for it.

Another Jihad fantasy.


Here is Tony Blair's oil "conspiracy theory" ruse, part of his dishonest campaign to launch an aggressive, illegal attack on Iraq:


Excellent. All these sources were quite correct - you'd have be a pretty hysterical CTer to believe that the Iraq war was a "war for oil". All facts and evidence say otherwise....but since when did Jihad and her fellow CTs care about the facts?

By the way, it goes without saying the Iraq war was only "illegal" in your rage-against-the-machine fantasies.

[Mac53]

Oh, man! Don't do that, you're hurting my feelings. Besides, I was hoping we could go over these point by point:

Most of what you are saying is…

Argument from Arrogant Assumption
Argument from Omnicient Absolute
Argument from Hard line fundamentalism
Argument from Herd mentality
Argument from illusory superiority
Argument from Impudence

…to name but a few.

Very nice, you sure got him good :)

I have been trying to explain that to him. You hit right on.

[Mac53]

You would like out of context and misappropriated definitions based on projection, wouldn't you?



Another Jihad fantasy.



Excellent. All these sources were quite correct - you'd have be a pretty hysterical CTer to believe that the Iraq war was a "war for oil". All facts and evidence say otherwise....but since when did Jihad and her fellow CTs care about the facts?

By the way, it goes without saying the Iraq war was only "illegal" in your rage-against-the-machine fantasies.

But mass murder against a nation is obviously legal.

[JihadJane]

Richard Perle:

“‘I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing.’

...

...Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that ‘international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone’, and this would have been morally unacceptable.

French intransigence, he added, meant there had been ‘no practical mechanism consistent with the rules of the UN for dealing with Saddam Hussein’.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/nov/20/usa.iraq1

Was Richard Perle the only one who didn't believe the ludicrous conspiracy theories offered to the public by the Bush/Blair axis?

Why did so many people believe their transparent lies? (Need for higher purpose?)

[eirik]

Richard Perle:

“‘I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing.’

...

...Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that ‘international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone’, and this would have been morally unacceptable.

French intransigence, he added, meant there had been ‘no practical mechanism consistent with the rules of the UN for dealing with Saddam Hussein’.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/nov/20/usa.iraq1

Was Richard Perle the only one who didn't believe the ludicrous conspiracy theories offered to the public by the Bush/Blair axis?

Why did so many people believe their transparent lies? (Need for higher purpose?)

Bolding mine. That is not what he said at all: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing". This means he thought the war was illegal according to the UN charter, but justified. You know, Saddam Hussein and all. He does not mention an oil conspiracy. Why would you say that?

And I don't appreciate the bullying tone in some of the posts here, not primarily from JihadJane, but there as well.

Mac53: Very nice, you sure got him good

Seriously? Is this kindergarten now? I suggest you don't embarrass yourself any further, and behave like a civilized person.

[JihadJane]

Bolding mine. That is not what he said at all: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing". This means he thought the war was illegal according to the UN charter, but justified. You know, Saddam Hussein and all. He does not mention an oil conspiracy. Why would you say that?

[Reminder: LiD said "the Iraq war was only 'illegal' in your rage-against-the-machine fantasies."]

Perle, by admitting that the assault on Iraq was, indeed, illegal in the eyes of international law, implies that the ridiculous theories about Saddam Hussein conspiring to attack the US and the UK, used to make the attack appear legal, were all bunk. It has since been revealed that the Anglo/US alliance was planning to attack Iraq regardless of the legality of their violence.

Believing that one' s breaking of the law is justified doesn't magically make one's action legal.

[LightinDarkness]

Very nice, you sure got him good :)

I have been trying to explain that to him. You hit right on.

Another CTer who fails to understand logical fallacies. The only thing jack "hit right on" was acting hysterical.

[LightinDarkness]

But mass murder against a nation is obviously legal.

Please learn about the definition of mass murder before trying to be dramatic.

[LightinDarkness]

[Reminder: LiD said "the Iraq war was only 'illegal' in your rage-against-the-machine fantasies."]

Perle, by admitting that the assault on Iraq was, indeed, illegal in the eyes of international law, implies that the ridiculous theories about Saddam Hussein conspiring to attack the US and the UK, used to make the attack appear legal, were all bunk. It has since been revealed that the Anglo/US alliance was planning to attack Iraq regardless of the legality of their violence.

Believing that one' s breaking of the law is justified doesn't magically make one's action legal.

Reminder: Regardless of your left-wing political hack persuasion, Jihad, the United States was operating under United Nations resolutions. Perhaps if the United Nations does not want its decrees enforced, we should stop putting those enforcement clauses in there?

There are lots of reasons to be against the Iraq war (I am against it myself), but the conspiracy woo-woo of it being "illegal" is simply not related to the facts. But that is what Jihad focuses on because she needs something to justify her raging against the MAN.

[AbelovPes]

Why people believe to Conspiracy Theories? For the same reason they like to watch horror movies.
Conspiracy theories offer a more imaginative narration to the events. It is the same production of myths that was with us for thousands years. As the story travels it is spiced up by the narrators, things are added and removed, all to the benefit of spectators to keep them interested in the story.

[Eyeron]

Another reason is because some people just cannot accept the official word no matter what. Some people just hate authority.

However, the conundrum is they often make themselves out to be the authority everybody should bow down to.

[JihadJane]

Another reason is because some people just cannot accept the official word no matter what.


It's not clear what you mean by "no what what", but is there something irrational about not accepting "the official word"?

Many of the officials in question, such as Tony Blair, George Bush, Condleezza Rice and Dick Cheney, for example, are known liars. Why believe anything they say?

[LightinDarkness]

It's not clear what you mean by "no what what", but is there something irrational about not accepting "the official word"?

Many of the officials in question, such as Tony Blair, George Bush, Condleezza Rice and Dick Cheney, for example, are known liars. Why believe anything they say?

Please provide, on a issue that impacts the government/nation/whatever, your citations and evidence for your absurd claims. Lets see the direct quotes proving any of these people are liars.

[AbelovPes]

This is absolutely cool!

Do you know that you can move any member to your Ignore list and then his/her posts do not show in any of the topic on the whole site?
Everything they ever wrote - poof, gone!

This is absolutely great! I love it!
Just click on his name on left and select "Add to your ignore list".

I immediately nominated JihadJane and LightingDarkness to my very own Ignore List and voila, they are gone: No more troubles with spraying up my coffee over the monitor!

I am also partial to do this with Bruce Voigt, but lets be fair to him, the novelty entertainment value of his teleportation experiment in jars in a corn field where they film Mel Gibson and also Earth turning into a new Sun is actually a one loose screw higher.

If few more people would do this, they will even stop paying them to post nonsense. (Except Bruce Voight, I think he is a "freelancer")

Please feel free to do the same with myself.... actually in a fairness game it should be required.

Going back to read some teleportation stories of Mel Gibson in a jar.

[JihadJane]

This is absolutely cool!

Do you know that you can move any member to your Ignore list and then his/her posts do not show in any of the topic on the whole site?


Yes, it's great, isn't it? ;)

[LightinDarkness]

Hysterical rant

Yawn, another woo woo who can't handle the truth but thinks that by constantly whining about his failures that this somehow makes up for his lack to make any contributions to the forums.

Abelov, I am still waiting on you to provide evidence for your woo vaccination claims. You acting like you put me on the ignore list (you obviously didn't - your far to hysterical to do that because you had to make an entire post about it) won't change the facts that you still have not provided evidence for your woo beliefs.

[Eyeron]

It's not clear what you mean by "no what what", but is there something irrational about not accepting "the official word"?


I didn't say "no what what" I said no matter what. That means under absolutely no circumstances, regardless of the evidence. And yes, I do believe it can be very irrational. It would be like being the only white person in a crowd of ten thousands black skinned people and saying there is no such thing as black skinned people. How is that not irrational? Another analogy is that they reject the idea of dogs existing because everybody else has a dog even refusing to believe that dogs exists when one bites them on the behind. How is that not irrational?

Many of the officials in question, such as Tony Blair, George Bush, Condleezza Rice and Dick Cheney, for example, are known liars. Why believe anything they say?

I don't do partisan politics. Partisan politics is extremely irrational and frustrating to me. Please don't pull it on me.

[JihadJane]

I didn't say "no what what" I said no matter what. That means under absolutely no circumstances, regardless of the evidence. And yes, I do believe it can be very irrational. It would be like being the only white person in a crowd of ten thousands black skinned people and saying there is no such thing as black skinned people. How is that not irrational? Another analogy is that they reject the idea of dogs existing because everybody else has a dog even refusing to believe that dogs exists when one bites them on the behind. How is that not irrational?

Sorry, "no what what" was a typo.

I haven't seen any evidence proving that the elements within the US power structure were not complicit in the 911 attacks. I have seen a lot of obstruction of investigations from the top of the power structure.



I don't do partisan politics. Partisan politics is extremely irrational and frustrating to me. Please don't pull it on me.

My comment had nothing to do with partisan politics. The people I named were the people who were holding the reins power at the time of the attacks and the people who communicated the "the official word" that you mentioned. They have all told many lies. That's why it is irrational to trust their word.

[eirik]

I haven't seen any evidence proving that the elements within the US power structure were not complicit in the 911 attacks. I have seen a lot of obstruction of investigations from the top of the power structure.

This looks to me like a case of a special pleading fallacy. The burden of proof rests on the claimant, in this case the person who yells "inside job". Tell us, why do you think that this does not apply in this situation?

Is it the alleged obstruction? If so, can you provide documentation?

[twinstead]

I haven't seen any evidence proving that the elements within the US power structure were not complicit in the 911 attacks.


I haven't seen any evidence proving that pink unicorns were not complicit in the 911 attacks.