Who are the conspiracy theorists?

[pagan]

Who are the conspiracy theorists? Those who believe in the official version? Or those who are the sceptics and has the courage to question it?

Somehow, I got this feeling that this thread is going to be removed. Isn't this a very relevant question?

Comments are welcomed...:)

[defaultdotxbe]

Or those who are the sceptics and has the courage to question it?
i think the defining factor of skeptics is not what they question, but whether they are willing to listen to answers, your psuedoskptical conspiracy theorists buddies dont accept any answers that dont agree with what they already decided the "truth" is, that is not being a skeptic

[pagan]

i think the defining factor of skeptics is not what they question, but whether they are willing to listen to answers, your psuedoskptical conspiracy theorists buddies dont accept any answers that dont agree with what they already decided the "truth" is, that is not being a skeptic

I can only interpret this as you choose to believe in the Dubya (proven liar) story instead of questioning it.

This makes you into a conspiracy theorist. Feel ashamed?

[Disbelief]

So then is Clinton your hero? Where was he on the job? Is he a criminal too?

[defaultdotxbe]

I can only interpret this as you choose to believe in the Dubya (proven liar) story instead of questioning it.

This makes you into a conspiracy theorist. Feel ashamed?
then your interpretation is wrong, ive been studying 9/11 for at least as long as any member of the truth movement

and just so we are clear, this isnt a logic riddle, there are no "brown hats" that always lie, and no "white hats" that always tell the truth, and even if the entire official story were based on g w bush's word alone that in itself still doesnt make it false

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

A "conspiracy theory" is not equivalent to a "theory which contains a conspiracy therein".

A "conspiracy theory" is a very specific thing. Definitions include, but are not limited to

Quote:
A conspiracy theory attempts to explain the ultimate cause of an event or chain of events (usually political (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political), social (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social), or historical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical) events) as a secret (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secrecy), and often deceptive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deception), plot by a covert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert) alliance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition) of powerful or influential people or organizations. Many conspiracy theories claim that major events in history have been dominated by conspirators who manipulate political happenings from behind the scenes.
The first recorded use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" dates back to an economics article in the 1920s, but it was only in the 1960s that it entered popular usage. It entered the supplement to the Oxford English Dictionary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary) as late as 1997. [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#_note-0)
The term "conspiracy theory" is used by mainstream scholars and in popular culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_culture) to identify a type of folklore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folklore) similar to an urban legend (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_legend), especially an explanatory narrative which is constructed with particular methodological (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodological) flaws.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#_note-1) The term is also used pejoratively (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pejorative) to dismiss claims that are alleged by critics to be misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish, irrational, or otherwise unworthy of serious consideration. For example "Conspiracy nut" and "conspiracy theorist" are used as pejorative terms. Some whose theories or speculations are labeled a "conspiracy theory" reject the term as prejudicial.
The term "conspiracy theory" may be a neutral descriptor for any conspiracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_%28political%29) claim. However, conspiracy theory is also used to indicate a narrative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative) genre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genre) that includes a broad selection of (not necessarily related) arguments for the existence of grand conspiracies, any of which might have far-reaching social and political implications if true.
Whether or not a particular conspiracy allegation may be impartially or neutrally labeled a conspiracy theory is subject to some controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#Controversies). Conspiracy theory has become a highly charged political term, and the broad critique of 'conspiracy theorists' by academics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academics), politicians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicians), psychologists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychologists), and the media (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_media) cuts across traditional left-right political lines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory)


Quote:
Main Entry: conspiracy theory
Function: noun
: a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators
- conspiracy theorist noun

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conspiracy%20theory (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conspiracy%20theory)


Quote:
conspiracy theory (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861688240/conspiracy_theory.html)
- belief that event is plot: a belief that a particular event is the result of a secret plot rather than the actions of an individual person or chance
(http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861688240/conspiracy_theory.html)

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpag...spiracy+theory (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/search.aspx?q=conspiracy+theory)

This is different from a theory (in the scientific sense) that contains a conspiracy

Quote:
Conspiracy (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761552634/Conspiracy.html)*
Conspiracy, in law, agreement between persons to do something illegal or criminal. In this offense, the mere agreement of the conspirators is... (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761552634/Conspiracy.html)

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpag...x?q=conspiracy (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/search.aspx?q=conspiracy)

Quote:

Main Entry: con·spir·a·cy http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript%3cb%3e%3c/b%3E:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?conspi04.wav=conspiracy'))
Pronunciation: k&n-'spir-&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Middle English conspiracie, from Latin conspirare
1 : the act of conspiring (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conspiring) together
2 a : an agreement among conspirators (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conspirators) b : a group of conspirators (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conspirators)
synonym see PLOT (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/plot)

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conspiracy (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conspiracy)


Quote:
In the criminal law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_law), a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more natural persons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_person) 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. There is no limit on the number participating in the conspiracy and, in most countries, no requirement that any steps have been taken to put the plan into effect (compare attempts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempt) which require proximity to the full offence). For the purposes of concurrence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrence), the actus reus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actus_reus) is a continuing one and parties may join "the plot" later and incur joint liability and conspiracy can be charged where the co-conspirators have been acquitted and/or cannot be traced. Finally, repentance by one or more parties does not affect liability but may reduce their sentence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_%28law%29).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_%28crime%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_%28crime%29)

To equate the two terms is equivocation

[pagan]

A "conspiracy theory" is not equivalent to a "theory which contains a conspiracy therein".

A "conspiracy theory" is a very specific thing. Definitions include, but are not limited to

Quote:
A conspiracy theory attempts to explain the ultimate cause of an event or chain of events (usually political (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political), social (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social), or historical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical) events) as a secret (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secrecy), and often deceptive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deception), plot by a covert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert) alliance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition) of powerful or influential people or organizations. Many conspiracy theories claim that major events in history have been dominated by conspirators who manipulate political happenings from behind the scenes.
The first recorded use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" dates back to an economics article in the 1920s, but it was only in the 1960s that it entered popular usage. It entered the supplement to the Oxford English Dictionary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary) as late as 1997. [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#_note-0)
The term "conspiracy theory" is used by mainstream scholars and in popular culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_culture) to identify a type of folklore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folklore) similar to an urban legend (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_legend), especially an explanatory narrative which is constructed with particular methodological (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodological) flaws.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#_note-1) The term is also used pejoratively (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pejorative) to dismiss claims that are alleged by critics to be misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish, irrational, or otherwise unworthy of serious consideration. For example "Conspiracy nut" and "conspiracy theorist" are used as pejorative terms. Some whose theories or speculations are labeled a "conspiracy theory" reject the term as prejudicial.
The term "conspiracy theory" may be a neutral descriptor for any conspiracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_%28political%29) claim. However, conspiracy theory is also used to indicate a narrative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative) genre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genre) that includes a broad selection of (not necessarily related) arguments for the existence of grand conspiracies, any of which might have far-reaching social and political implications if true.
Whether or not a particular conspiracy allegation may be impartially or neutrally labeled a conspiracy theory is subject to some controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#Controversies). Conspiracy theory has become a highly charged political term, and the broad critique of 'conspiracy theorists' by academics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academics), politicians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicians), psychologists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychologists), and the media (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_media) cuts across traditional left-right political lines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory)


Quote:
Main Entry: conspiracy theory
Function: noun
: a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators
- conspiracy theorist noun

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conspiracy%20theory (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conspiracy%20theory)


Quote:
conspiracy theory (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861688240/conspiracy_theory.html)
- belief that event is plot: a belief that a particular event is the result of a secret plot rather than the actions of an individual person or chance
(http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861688240/conspiracy_theory.html)

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpag...spiracy+theory (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/search.aspx?q=conspiracy+theory)

This is different from a theory (in the scientific sense) that contains a conspiracy

Quote:
Conspiracy (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761552634/Conspiracy.html)*
Conspiracy, in law, agreement between persons to do something illegal or criminal. In this offense, the mere agreement of the conspirators is... (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761552634/Conspiracy.html)

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpag...x?q=conspiracy (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/search.aspx?q=conspiracy)

Quote:

Main Entry: con·spir·a·cy [/URL][URL]http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript%3cb%3e%3c/b%3E:popWin%28%27/cgi-bin/audio.pl?conspi04.wav=conspiracy%27%29)
Pronunciation: k&n-'spir-&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Middle English conspiracie, from Latin conspirare
1 : the act of conspiring (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conspiring) together
2 a : an agreement among conspirators (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conspirators) b : a group of conspirators (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conspirators)
synonym see PLOT (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/plot)

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conspiracy (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conspiracy)


Quote:
In the criminal law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_law), a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more natural persons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_person) 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. There is no limit on the number participating in the conspiracy and, in most countries, no requirement that any steps have been taken to put the plan into effect (compare attempts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempt) which require proximity to the full offence). For the purposes of concurrence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrence), the actus reus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actus_reus) is a continuing one and parties may join "the plot" later and incur joint liability and conspiracy can be charged where the co-conspirators have been acquitted and/or cannot be traced. Finally, repentance by one or more parties does not affect liability but may reduce their sentence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_%28law%29).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_%28crime%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_%28crime%29)

To equate the two terms is equivocation

Tnx, but no tnx Arkan.

It would be much easier if you could explain to me, what about the official story is not a conspiracy theory?
I mean, Osama and the 19 hijackers...

[defaultdotxbe]

Yes, but you still choose to believe in him, despite the fact that he is a proven liar.

ERGO: you are not only a conspiracy theorist, you are irrational.
once again, bush is not the sole source for information related to the official story of 9/11, if he said tomorrow it was an inside job and he planned the whole thing, id still stick with the NIST report and the 9/11 commission

[defaultdotxbe]

Tnx, but no tnx Arkan.

It would be much easier if you could explain to me, what about the official story is not a conspiracy theory?
I mean, Osama and the 19 hijackers...
heres the executive summary of arkans post:

A "conspiracy theory" is not equivalent to a "theory which contains a conspiracy therein".

To equate the two terms is equivocation

[pagan]

once again, bush is not the sole source for information related to the official story of 9/11, if he said tomorrow it was an inside job and he planned the whole thing, id still stick with the NIST report and the 9/11 commission

Talking about gullible..? Do you think NIST or a individual scienist could question the official version without getting fired?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

A "conspiracy theory" is not equivalent to a "theory which contains a conspiracy therein".

A "conspiracy theory" is a very specific thing. Definitions include, but are not limited to

Quote:
A conspiracy theory attempts to explain the ultimate cause of an event or chain of events (usually political (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political), social (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social), or historical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical) events) as a secret (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secrecy), and often deceptive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deception), plot by a covert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert) alliance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition) of powerful or influential people or organizations. Many conspiracy theories claim that major events in history have been dominated by conspirators who manipulate political happenings from behind the scenes.
The first recorded use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" dates back to an economics article in the 1920s, but it was only in the 1960s that it entered popular usage. It entered the supplement to the Oxford English Dictionary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary) as late as 1997. [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#_note-0)
The term "conspiracy theory" is used by mainstream scholars and in popular culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_culture) to identify a type of folklore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folklore) similar to an urban legend (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_legend), especially an explanatory narrative which is constructed with particular methodological (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodological) flaws.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#_note-1) The term is also used pejoratively (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pejorative) to dismiss claims that are alleged by critics to be misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish, irrational, or otherwise unworthy of serious consideration. For example "Conspiracy nut" and "conspiracy theorist" are used as pejorative terms. Some whose theories or speculations are labeled a "conspiracy theory" reject the term as prejudicial.
The term "conspiracy theory" may be a neutral descriptor for any conspiracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_%28political%29) claim. However, conspiracy theory is also used to indicate a narrative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative) genre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genre) that includes a broad selection of (not necessarily related) arguments for the existence of grand conspiracies, any of which might have far-reaching social and political implications if true.
Whether or not a particular conspiracy allegation may be impartially or neutrally labeled a conspiracy theory is subject to some controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#Controversies). Conspiracy theory has become a highly charged political term, and the broad critique of 'conspiracy theorists' by academics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academics), politicians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicians), psychologists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychologists), and the media (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_media) cuts across traditional left-right political lines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory)


Quote:
Main Entry: conspiracy theory
Function: noun
: a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators
- conspiracy theorist noun

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conspiracy%20theory (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conspiracy%20theory)


Quote:
conspiracy theory (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861688240/conspiracy_theory.html)
- belief that event is plot: a belief that a particular event is the result of a secret plot rather than the actions of an individual person or chance
(http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861688240/conspiracy_theory.html)

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpag...spiracy+theory (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/search.aspx?q=conspiracy+theory)

This is different from a theory (in the scientific sense) that contains a conspiracy

Quote:
Conspiracy (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761552634/Conspiracy.html)*
Conspiracy, in law, agreement between persons to do something illegal or criminal. In this offense, the mere agreement of the conspirators is... (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761552634/Conspiracy.html)

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpag...x?q=conspiracy (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/search.aspx?q=conspiracy)

Quote:

Main Entry: con·spir·a·cy http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript%3cb%3e%3c/b%3E:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?conspi04.wav=conspiracy'))
Pronunciation: k&n-'spir-&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Middle English conspiracie, from Latin conspirare
1 : the act of conspiring (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conspiring) together
2 a : an agreement among conspirators (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conspirators) b : a group of conspirators (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conspirators)
synonym see PLOT (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/plot)

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conspiracy (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conspiracy)


Quote:
In the criminal law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_law), a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more natural persons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_person) 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. There is no limit on the number participating in the conspiracy and, in most countries, no requirement that any steps have been taken to put the plan into effect (compare attempts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempt) which require proximity to the full offence). For the purposes of concurrence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrence), the actus reus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actus_reus) is a continuing one and parties may join "the plot" later and incur joint liability and conspiracy can be charged where the co-conspirators have been acquitted and/or cannot be traced. Finally, repentance by one or more parties does not affect liability but may reduce their sentence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_%28law%29).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_%28crime%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_%28crime%29)

To equate the two terms is equivocation
QED

[pagan]

heres the executive summary of arkans post:

"equivocation". So what is the difference? Dubya?

[kookbreaker]

Talking about gullible..? Do you think NIST or a individual scienist could question the official version without getting fired?

Very easily, especially in other countries. Ones not friendly to the United States.

Where are they?

Also, going against NIST would involve having sufficient evidence to do so.

The naivette is beleiving that Engineers, who make massive studies of structural failure as part of their training, would be able to cover up anything for more than a few minutes.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

"equivocation". So what is the difference? Dubya?
Stop asking the question if you can't be bothered to read the answer.

[Civilized Worm]

Do you think that all scientists care more about their jobs than the deaths of 3000 innocent people?

Do you think that a scientist in another country would be fired for questioning the "official account"?

[Quad4_72]

Pagan is making the common mistake that pretty much ALL CFs make. Just because a theory contains a conspiracy in it DOES NOT make it a conspiracy theory.

[pagan]

QED

Nope, do you mean that the fact that this is a Dubya story it is QED? A q about authority?

[defaultdotxbe]

Talking about gullible..? Do you think NIST or a individual scienist could question the official version without getting fired?
paranoia paranoia
everybody's coming to get me
just say you never met me
i'm going underground with the moles
hear the voices in my head
i swear to god it sounds like they're snoring

[pagan]

paranoia paranoia
everybody's coming to get me
just say you never met me
i'm going underground with the moles
hear the voices in my head
i swear to god it sounds like they're snoring

Paranoia???

Politics of fear, Patriot act, homeland security, war on terror, attacking Afghanistan and Iraq is not paranoia???:jaw-dropp

[defaultdotxbe]

Paranoia???

Politics of fear, Patriot act, homeland security, war on terror, attacking Afghanistan and Iraq is not paranoia???:jaw-dropp
actually i think your interpretations of those are perfect examples of paranoia

as for pat act and homeland security, both overkill, but not as much so as truthers would have us believe

[pagan]

actually i think your interpretations of those are perfect examples of paranoia

as for pat act and homeland security, both overkill, but not as much so as truthers would have us believe

So again, you choose to believe in the official conspiracy theory. About Ali baba Osama and the 19 cokeheads?

I have to say that this is very irrational.

[defaultdotxbe]

So again, you choose to believe in the official conspiracy theory. About Ali baba Osama and the 19 cokeheads?

I have to say that this is very irrational.
far more rational than anything else ive heard

[Quad4_72]

So again, you choose to believe in the official conspiracy theory. About Ali baba Osama and the 19 cokeheads?

I have to say that this is very irrational.

Well lets see here. There is OVERWHELMING CONFIRMED proof that it was Osama Bin Laden and a bunch of hijackers. There is ZERO proof that there was a government conspiracy. Which one is irrational again?

[pagan]

Please Arkan.

Could you explain to me with your own words. What exactly about the official conspiracy theory that we truthers/sceptics question, is not a conspiracy theory?

[Myriad]

Pagan, you seem to have the idea that the sigificant word in "conspiracy theorist," the word that makes being a conspiracy theorist something that most people don't want to be, is "conspiracy." So if your explanation for an event involves a conspiracy (such as, among 19 or so terrorists and their leaders), that makes you a conspiracy theorist.

Actually, the real problem with being a conspiracy theorist is the "theorist" part. Being, or being regarded as, a "theorist" is almost never a good or desirable thing. Consider this example:

"Hey, I was thinking of hiring Sam to do some plumbing work for me. Is he a good plumber?"

"Well, he's a good plumbing theorist."

Would you hire Sam, based on that recommendation? I certainly wouldn't. Calling him a theorist implies that he can't do any actual plumbing, or can't do it well; he can only concoct theories about it.

And in almost all professions, including creative and technical ones, it's the same. To be called a "theorist" is almost always a clear implication that the person can only theorize, and cannot actually do anything useful to put theories into practice. I once didn't get a job that I very much wanted in my own creative field (computer game design) with the damning evaluation that I was "a good theorist," that is, I had published some interesting ideas about game design and presented some interesting ideas for specific designs, but I hadn't done enough to prove I would be able to execute them. (Unfortunately this was true, at the time.) The people who get to be called "theorists" without implied insult, as in "Alfred Hitchcock was a great film theorist," are the ones who have produced an impressive body of actual work to test their theories against the evidence and/or to put their theories into practice.

What about science? Science runs on theories, so one might think that being a good theorist would be a good recommendation for any scientist. Well, not quite. Not if the implication is that you're only a theorist. There are a few fields such as cosmology and particle physics where theorizing is so difficult that the field supports (a few) pure theorists. Every other scientist is expected to spend a lot more time testing and researching theories than concocting them. Few scientists' careers could survive becoming generally regarded as a "good theorist, poor researcher." The other way around is no problem, though, because most of the work in science is testing other people's theories.

What makes a conspiracy theorist is not investigating a theory involving a conspiracy, nor even concluding that such a theory is most likely correct; it's responding to questions by assuming an answer and then making up a theory to explain it, rather than testing proposed theories by investigating the evidence. The "conspiracy" part comes about almost by accident, beause a conspiracy can explain almost anything. So if you're spending all your time making up theories to explain conclusions you've already jumped to, they'll tend to end up being conspiracy theories.

Here's an example: The first time I visited this subforum, I read a claim that the lower part of the World Trade Center towers should have resisted the collapse of the upper part and remained standing. I did some research to find out the relevant masses, distances, and strength safety factors relevant to the question of whether the lower towers would have remained standing or not. I then did some calculations based on those quantities and determined that the dynamic load would far exceed what the structure could withstand, so the theory that the lower towers should have remained standing was falsified.

When a typical conspiracy theorist gets the notion (or is told) that the lower parts of the towers should have remained standing, he doesn't do what I did and investigate the claim. Instead he makes up a theory to explain the claim: "OMG, then there must have been demolitions charges in the towers." Which raises the question, how did the explosives get there? Now he needs another theory: "OMG, someone must have put them there." How, given the amount of explosives and the amount of access to the building that would have been required? Another theory: "OMG, there must have been a conspiracy."

At any point along that chain, you could do what I did and actually investigate the claim instead of explaining it with another layer of theory. I stopped to investigate at the first step: "Should the lower towers have remained standing?" But you could also investigate at the second: "Is there any evidence of explosives in the towers?" Or the third: "Is it possible that the buildings could have been secretly rigged for demolition without anyone noticing?" But no, conspiracy theorists cannot or do not do this, because they're only theorists. Their train of thought goes non-stop direct to "OMG there must have been a conspiracy."

And that, sir, is why you are a conspiracy theorist and I am not.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[T.A.M.]

Pagan:

Name one, ONE significant right or freedom that you, personally, have LOST as a result of the Patriot Act?

BIll Clinton and his cronies were in power for all of the years leading up to 9/11 save 9 months prior, so if you blame DUBYA, ya gotta blame BILL to.

I pity you, if you are so paranoid, so ill thinking of your fellow North Americans, that you think that all the NIST scientists, all the MIT scientists, are saying what they say for fear of losing their jobs, when according to you, they are covering up the murder of 3000 innocent people.

TAM:)

[pagan]

Well lets see here. There is OVERWHELMING CONFIRMED proof that it was Osama Bin Laden and a bunch of hijackers. There is ZERO proof that there was a government conspiracy. Which one is irrational again?

There is no proof that Osama had annything to do with 911. Stated by the FBI. No hard evidence.

[T.A.M.]

Could you explain to me with your own words. What exactly about the official conspiracy theory that we truthers/sceptics question, is not a conspiracy theory?

It has been proven to all but a few paranoid truthers, through the presentation of physical evidence, eye witness accounts, confessions, and a plethora of other evidences. Hence, having been proven, to us at least, it is not a THEORY.

TAM:)

[Civilized Worm]

So again, you choose to believe in the official conspiracy theory. About Ali baba Osama and the 19 cokeheads?

I have to say that this is very irrational.


Ignoring the racism for just a moment, I thought Bush was the cokehead?

[T.A.M.]

There is no proof that Osama had annything to do with 911. Stated by the FBI. No hard evidence.

Proof please. where is the quote from a representative of the FBI that states "There is no proof Osama had anything to do with 9/11", or where do they say there is "NO hard evidence".

Otherwise, please restate or retract.

TAM:)

[Quad4_72]

There is no proof that Osama had annything to do with 911. Stated by the FBI. No hard evidence.

Osama has put out numerous confession videos. But wait I thought that the FBI was in on the conspiracy? Why would they not want to blame him then???

[defaultdotxbe]

There is no proof that Osama had annything to do with 911. Stated by the FBI. No hard evidence.
no hard evidence =/= no evidence

just out of curiosity, do you know whatr the FBI means by "hard evidence"?

[Alt+F4]

There is no proof that Osama had annything to do with 911. Stated by the FBI. No hard evidence.

The FBI is lying, doesn't all of the federal government?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Talking about gullible..? Do you think NIST or a individual scienist could question the official version without getting fired?
Do you think that all scientists care more about their jobs than the deaths of 3000 innocent people?

Do you think that a scientist in another country would be fired for questioning the "official account"?
These are serious questions, pagan...

[pagan]

Pagan, you seem to have the idea that the sigificant word in "conspiracy theorist," the word that makes being a conspiracy theorist something that most people don't want to be, is "conspiracy." So if your explanation for an event involves a conspiracy (such as, among 19 or so terrorists and their leaders), that makes you a conspiracy theorist.

Actually, the real problem with being a conspiracy theorist is the "theorist" part. Being, or being regarded as, a "theorist" is almost never a good or desirable thing. Consider this example:

"Hey, I was thinking of hiring Sam to do some plumbing work for me. Is he a good plumber?"

"Well, he's a good plumbing theorist."

Would you hire Sam, based on that recommendation? I certainly wouldn't. Calling him a theorist implies that he can't do any actual plumbing, or can't do it well; he can only concoct theories about it.

And in almost all professions, including creative and technical ones, it's the same. To be called a "theorist" is almost always a clear implication that the person can only theorize, and cannot actually do anything useful to put theories into practice. I once didn't get a job that I very much wanted in my own creative field (computer game design) with the damning evaluation that I was "a good theorist," that is, I had published some interesting ideas about game design and presented some interesting ideas for specific designs, but I hadn't done enough to prove I would be able to execute them. (Unfortunately this was true, at the time.) The people who get to be called "theorists" without implied insult, as in "Alfred Hitchcock was a great film theorist," are the ones who have produced an impressive body of actual work to test their theories against the evidence and/or to put their theories into practice.

What about science? Science runs on theories, so one might think that being a good theorist would be a good recommendation for any scientist. Well, not quite. Not if the implication is that you're only a theorist. There are a few fields such as cosmology and particle physics where theorizing is so difficult that the field supports (a few) pure theorists. Every other scientist is expected to spend a lot more time testing and researching theories than concocting them. Few scientists' careers could survive becoming generally regarded as a "good theorist, poor researcher." The other way around is no problem, though, because most of the work in science is testing other people's theories.

What makes a conspiracy theorist is not investigating a theory involving a conspiracy, nor even concluding that such a theory is most likely correct; it's responding to questions by assuming an answer and then making up a theory to explain it, rather than testing proposed theories by investigating the evidence. The "conspiracy" part comes about almost by accident, beause a conspiracy can explain almost anything. So if you're spending all your time making up theories to explain conclusions you've already jumped to, they'll tend to end up being conspiracy theories.

Here's an example: The first time I visited this subforum, I read a claim that the lower part of the World Trade Center towers should have resisted the collapse of the upper part and remained standing. I did some research to find out the relevant masses, distances, and strength safety factors relevant to the question of whether the lower towers would have remained standing or not. I then did some calculations based on those quantities and determined that the dynamic load would far exceed what the structure could withstand, so the theory that the lower towers should have remained standing was falsified.

When a typical conspiracy theorist gets the notion (or is told) that the lower parts of the towers should have remained standing, he doesn't do what I did and investigate the claim. Instead he makes up a theory to explain the claim: "OMG, then there must have been demolitions charges in the towers." Which raises the question, how did the explosives get there? Now he needs another theory: "OMG, someone must have put them there." How, given the amount of explosives and the amount of access to the building that would have been required? Another theory: "OMG, there must have been a conspiracy."

At any point along that chain, you could do what I did and actually investigate the claim instead of explaining it with another layer of theory. I stopped to investigate at the first step: "Should the lower towers have remained standing?" But you could also investigate at the second: "Is there any evidence of explosives in the towers?" Or the third: "Is it possible that the buildings could have been secretly rigged for demolition without anyone noticing?" But no, conspiracy theorists cannot or do not do this, because they're only theorists. Their train of thought goes non-stop direct to "OMG there must have been a conspiracy."

And that, sir, is why you are a conspiracy theorist and I am not.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Huh? The whole forum is built and biased on the pejorative term "conspiracy theorist". What I am doing here is pointing out that you guys are the CT:ers not us, we are the sceptics.

I think that Dubya has proved by now that he is a a very bad "plumber". Why do you guys insist hiring him???

When it comes to the tower collapses. I trust my common sense. Especially when it is confirmed by many professors.

You still choose to believe in the silly Dubya story. That makes you into a irrational conspiracy theorist.

[T.A.M.]

Bill was president up until 9 months before 9/11. His people are as, if not, more responsible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Huh? The whole forum is built and biased on the pejorative term "conspiracy theorist". What I am doing here is pointing out that you guys are the CT:ers not us, we are the sceptics.
Let me get this straight...

The "official account" contains a conspiracy of probably less than 50 people... and we're "conspiracy theorists"; but your "alternative account" contains a conspiracy of likely well over 100 people with no verifiable proof... and you're "skeptics"?

Please explain this apparent double-standard.

[pagan]

Ignoring the racism for just a moment, I thought Bush was the cokehead?

Racism? Please... Killing 1 million Arabs in Iraq, that is racism.

Bush is no cokehead, he used to be an alcoholic...
That the hijackers were coke heads is conformed by many testimonies, they also liked pork, strippers and alcohol. Not very Muslim.

Breach of Membership Agreement removed.

Continuing to breach your Membership Agreement may result in further Moderation action including suspension or banning.

[T.A.M.]

you mean like the testimony of Atta's alleged girlfriend, who late last year admitted her relationsip with him didnt exist?

TAM:)

[FactCheck]

A conspiracy theorist blames UNNAMED shadowy organizations for major events. NWO is not the name of a known org like Al Qaeda. No one has said they are the member of NWO. It's a figment of conspiracy theorists imagination. The people who conclude fires collapsed the buildings on 9/11 blame NAMED organizations like Al Qaeda and people like Bin Laden. We offer evidence linking Bin Laden/hijackers to the event. Conspiracy theorists don't even have a memo linking the people they accuse. That's why they are conspiracy theorists.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

That the hijackers were coke heads is conformed by many testimonies, they also liked pork, strippers and alcohol. Not very Muslim.
I can only assume the reason you keep regurgitating this stuff is because its so stale and moldy.

http://911myths.com/html/strip_clubs.html

[Myriad]

Huh? The whole forum is built and biased on the pejorative term "conspiracy theorist". What I am doing here is pointing out that you guys are the CT:ers not us, we are the sceptics.

You are making that claim, yes. But are you supporting it with any evidence? Let's see.

I think that Dubya has proved by now that he is a a very bad "plumber". Why do you guys insist hiring him???

That's not evidence for your claim, and irrelevant to the topic at hand. Why did you mention this?

When it comes to the tower collapses. I trust my common sense. Especially when it is confirmed by many professors.

That's not evidence for your claim that you're a skeptic. Neither "trusting your common sense" nor seeing your ideas "confirmed by many" (but not "the majority of" or any particular perecentage of) professors constitututes investigating the evidence.

You still choose to believe in the silly Dubya story. That makes you into a irrational conspiracy theorist.

That's not evidence for your claim. However, it's very good evidence for my claim, which is that you're a conspiracy theorist because you fecklessly make up theories to justify your assumptions.

My claim was that I found out by doing calculations that the dynamic load of the collapsing masses was more than sufficient to make collapse of the lower towers inevitable. You don't believe my claim; that's OK. But you didn't test my claim, such as by doing the calculation yourself or even asking me to show my calculations. Instead you made up a theory for why I make a claim that you assume is false. The theory you made up is that my real reason for believing the towers would be expected to collapse completely is that George W. Bush said so and I believe him without question. You haven't provided any evidence of this, either that Bush ever said anything about the dynamic loads on the lower towers or that I would believe him if he did.

It's a pretty poor theory, but since all you can do is make up theories to explain your assumptions, that's what you did. That makes you not a scientist, not an investigator, not a skeptic. It makes you just a theorist. A conspiracy theorist, to be precise.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[uk_dave]

Another CTer folds.

No valid arguments. No facts. Just prejudice and fantasy.

Oh well, life goes on.

[LashL]

Pagan, you seem to have the idea that the sigificant word in "conspiracy theorist," the word that makes being a conspiracy theorist something that most people don't want to be, is "conspiracy." So if your explanation for an event involves a conspiracy (such as, among 19 or so terrorists and their leaders), that makes you a conspiracy theorist.

Actually, the real problem with being a conspiracy theorist is the "theorist" part. Being, or being regarded as, a "theorist" is almost never a good or desirable thing. Consider this example:

"Hey, I was thinking of hiring Sam to do some plumbing work for me. Is he a good plumber?"

"Well, he's a good plumbing theorist."

Would you hire Sam, based on that recommendation? I certainly wouldn't. Calling him a theorist implies that he can't do any actual plumbing, or can't do it well; he can only concoct theories about it.

And in almost all professions, including creative and technical ones, it's the same. To be called a "theorist" is almost always a clear implication that the person can only theorize, and cannot actually do anything useful to put theories into practice. I once didn't get a job that I very much wanted in my own creative field (computer game design) with the damning evaluation that I was "a good theorist," that is, I had published some interesting ideas about game design and presented some interesting ideas for specific designs, but I hadn't done enough to prove I would be able to execute them. (Unfortunately this was true, at the time.) The people who get to be called "theorists" without implied insult, as in "Alfred Hitchcock was a great film theorist," are the ones who have produced an impressive body of actual work to test their theories against the evidence and/or to put their theories into practice.

What about science? Science runs on theories, so one might think that being a good theorist would be a good recommendation for any scientist. Well, not quite. Not if the implication is that you're only a theorist. There are a few fields such as cosmology and particle physics where theorizing is so difficult that the field supports (a few) pure theorists. Every other scientist is expected to spend a lot more time testing and researching theories than concocting them. Few scientists' careers could survive becoming generally regarded as a "good theorist, poor researcher." The other way around is no problem, though, because most of the work in science is testing other people's theories.

What makes a conspiracy theorist is not investigating a theory involving a conspiracy, nor even concluding that such a theory is most likely correct; it's responding to questions by assuming an answer and then making up a theory to explain it, rather than testing proposed theories by investigating the evidence. The "conspiracy" part comes about almost by accident, beause a conspiracy can explain almost anything. So if you're spending all your time making up theories to explain conclusions you've already jumped to, they'll tend to end up being conspiracy theories.

Here's an example: The first time I visited this subforum, I read a claim that the lower part of the World Trade Center towers should have resisted the collapse of the upper part and remained standing. I did some research to find out the relevant masses, distances, and strength safety factors relevant to the question of whether the lower towers would have remained standing or not. I then did some calculations based on those quantities and determined that the dynamic load would far exceed what the structure could withstand, so the theory that the lower towers should have remained standing was falsified.

When a typical conspiracy theorist gets the notion (or is told) that the lower parts of the towers should have remained standing, he doesn't do what I did and investigate the claim. Instead he makes up a theory to explain the claim: "OMG, then there must have been demolitions charges in the towers." Which raises the question, how did the explosives get there? Now he needs another theory: "OMG, someone must have put them there." How, given the amount of explosives and the amount of access to the building that would have been required? Another theory: "OMG, there must have been a conspiracy."

At any point along that chain, you could do what I did and actually investigate the claim instead of explaining it with another layer of theory. I stopped to investigate at the first step: "Should the lower towers have remained standing?" But you could also investigate at the second: "Is there any evidence of explosives in the towers?" Or the third: "Is it possible that the buildings could have been secretly rigged for demolition without anyone noticing?" But no, conspiracy theorists cannot or do not do this, because they're only theorists. Their train of thought goes non-stop direct to "OMG there must have been a conspiracy."

And that, sir, is why you are a conspiracy theorist and I am not.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Nominated!
:bigclap

[bonavada]

Nominated!
:bigclap

beat me to it....
excellent stuff.

BV

[beachnut]

Another CTer folds.

No valid arguments. No facts. Just prejudice and fantasy.

Oh well, life goes on.I wonder if he is one of those guys who lost their weapons the other day in Alabama. He seems real mad about something today. Why is pagan so upset today? Was there a great event in CT history today?

[Liszt]

The FBI says this about Usama Bin Laden

MURDER OF U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; CONSPIRACY TO MURDER U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; ATTACK ON A FEDERAL FACILITY RESULTING IN DEATH

and

Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world.


http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

Why don´t they say "wanted for attacks of 9/11"?

[T.A.M.]

Has anyone actually asked the FBI this question??

TAM;)

[T.A.M.]

as well, if one of Al Capone's hitmen kills someone, it is likely easier to prove the hitman committed the murder, rather than Capone...Capishe?

TAM:)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Please Arkan.

Could you explain to me with your own words. What exactly about the official conspiracy theory that we truthers/sceptics question, is not a conspiracy theory?
I did. If it doesn't make sense, read it again. If it still doesn't make sense, then keep reading it until it does.

[Liszt]

The FBI says this about Usama Bin Laden

MURDER OF U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; CONSPIRACY TO MURDER U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; ATTACK ON A FEDERAL FACILITY RESULTING IN DEATH

and

Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world.


http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

Why don´t they say "wanted for attacks of 9/11"?


This bit of the official theory doesn´t make sense. What do you think?

[defaultdotxbe]

This bit of the official theory doesn´t make sense. What do you think?
because the FBI has stated they dont have any hard evidence connecting bin laden to 9/11

now before you respond to that please answer the question i asked pagan:

do you know what the FBI means by "hard evidence"?

[Redtail]

This bit of the official theory doesn´t make sense. What do you think?

Has anyone actually asked the FBI this question??

TAM:wink:

as well, if one of Al Capone's hitmen kills someone, it is likely easier to prove the hitman committed the murder, rather than Capone...Capishe?

TAM:)

I would have to agree with these two points. And you should answer defaultdotxbe's question.

[Liszt]

because the FBI has stated they dont have any hard evidence connecting bin laden to 9/11

now before you respond to that please answer the question i asked pagan:

do you know what the FBI means by "hard evidence"?

I expect it means evidence that is "real and unassailable", which would be physical - documents, forensic etc. (as opposed to witness testimony (could be false) or circumstantial evidence)

They clearly have enough evidence to claim Blin Laden performed other attacks.

Didn´t they come up with his name almost straight away for 911? How did the FBI (or whoever) manage to do that, and yet still be lacking in enough evidence to tell us about it on their public website today?

[defaultdotxbe]

I expect it means evidence that is "real and unassailable", which would be physical - documents, forensic etc. (as opposed to witness testimony (could be false) or circumstantial evidence)

from what i understand (however i could be wrong) it means evidence that cna be admitted in court, which would mean things like his confession tape(s) would require a verifiable chain of posession

i dont know what evidence the FBI has to connect him to other crimes so i cant comment on that

[Hokulele]

The poster you linked to was created prior to September 11, 2001. Once a fugitive is posted to the Most Wanted List for one crime, the FBI does not necessarily update the poster to include later crimes.

[Liszt]

from what i understand (however i could be wrong) it means evidence that cna be admitted in court, which would mean things like his confession tape(s) would require a verifiable chain of posession

i dont know what evidence the FBI has to connect him to other crimes so i cant comment on that


You are probably correct. But this should be easy to verify. It is nearly 4am here, so perhaps it will be solved by tommorow.

[Liszt]

The poster you linked to was created prior to September 11, 2001. Once a fugitive is posted to the Most Wanted List for one crime, the FBI does not necessarily update the poster to include later crimes.

Also could be true - but are you guessing or do you know this for a fact?

Once again, real journalists should have done all this years ago.

[Hokulele]

Also could be true - but are you guessing or do you know this for a fact?

Once again, real journalists should have done all this years ago.


This was posted after the Embassy bombings it describes, as it was the first instance of OBL making the Most Wanted list. In addition, you can view the meta-data in the source HTML file. Although there is no explicit time/date stamp (as there are in newer HTML's, which also helps date this as being fairly old), it does reference IE 4 and Adobe PageMill 3.0, both software programs prevalent in 1997-1998, but unlikely to be referenced once IE 5 came into general usage in 1999-2000.

[bje]

"Huh? The whole forum is built and biased on the pejorative term "conspiracy theorist". What I am doing here is pointing out that you guys are the CT:ers not us, we are the sceptics."

No, you are no skeptic, pagan. You're just a newbie copying and pasting Usenet posts from five years ago because you have no evidence to refute the evidence.

[stateofgrace]

Who are the conspiracy theorists? Those who believe in the official version? Or those who are the sceptics and has the courage to question it?

Somehow, I got this feeling that this thread is going to be removed. Isn't this a very relevant question?

Comments are welcomed...:)


Actually I think your question should be reworded.

Who are the conspiracy theorists? Those who accept the word of the people who carried out the biggest criminal investigation ever, which involved interviewing literally hundreds of people who were there. Which also includes a massive scientific investigation into all aspects of the day’s events, with full public consultation and again with the complete approval of the public and from those that were there? An investigation that was so massive that at every stage of it, preliminary reports were put into the public domain for feedback. A criminal investigation that as quite literally involved virtually every single intelligence agency on the face of the planet and resulted in the biggest manhunt ever. An investigation that quite literally involved hundreds of independent academics, scientists and engineers and is accepted and not questioned by a single institute of professional engineers in any field from anywhere on the planet. An investigation carried out by many, many independent people who have absolutely no reason to lie or cover up mass murder of 3000 of their own?

Or those who believe Alex Jones?

Comments are welcome....:)

[Hokulele]

I checked a bit more into the FBI "Most Wanted Terrorist" list, and it turns out, this particular list was created as a response to the 9/11 attacks. OBL was the only person already on the standard "Most Wanted" list, in reference to the Embassy attacks. The "Most Wanted Terrorist" list was updated in 2006 to add persons. The only time a person's entry on the list is edited is when an actual indictment is handed down, or when a person is captured or believed to be dead. I guess, once you are "most wanted", it would be difficult to be "even more wanted". :)

[knot]

A passenger jet struck the pentagon, it wasn't a missile.

[BillyJoe]

I can only interpret this as you choose to believe in the Dubya (proven liar) story instead of questioning it...


What do you think makes a person a sceptic of something?
Merely questioning it?

A sceptic is a person who evaluates the evidence for something.

So, if the evidence is there, it is still true regardless of how many "proven liars" happen to believe it. It's not who believes it, but what evidence there is supporting it.

[BillyJoe]

So again, you choose to believe in the official conspiracy theory...I have to say that this is very irrational.


If you choose to believe in the absence of evidence then, yes, it is irrational.
If you believe because of the evidence then no.

[BillyJoe]

Who are the conspiracy theorists?


Those who have no evidence.

Those who believe in the official version?


Only if there is no evidence for the official version.

Or those who are the sceptics and has the courage to question it?


Again, it is not the questioning but the evaluation of the evidence that makes you a sceptic.
It doesn't take courage so much as hard work to evaluate the evidence.

[JAStewart]

Ask questions,
Recognize answers.

-boloboffin

[Undesired Walrus]

Racism? Please... Killing 1 million Arabs in Iraq, that is racism.


Um...Wh..What?

[Liszt]

I checked a bit more into the FBI "Most Wanted Terrorist" list, and it turns out, this particular list was created as a response to the 9/11 attacks. OBL was the only person already on the standard "Most Wanted" list, in reference to the Embassy attacks. The "Most Wanted Terrorist" list was updated in 2006 to add persons. The only time a person's entry on the list is edited is when an actual indictment is handed down, or when a person is captured or believed to be dead. I guess, once you are "most wanted", it would be difficult to be "even more wanted". :)

Nice work. They should have updated Bin Laden´s page though. Make an exception etc. Very lazy of them.

[Myriad]

Nice work. They should have updated Bin Laden´s page though. Make an exception etc. Very lazy of them.


Or perhaps they learned a long time ago not to let criminals use their Most Wanted List entries as their personal scorecards, and set a policy of not updating it whenever a spectacular new crime was comiitted.

Sure, that's just speculation -- but no more so than your "very lazy of them" assessment.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Foolmewunz]

Nice work. They should have updated Bin Laden´s page though. Make an exception etc. Very lazy of them.

The page still hasn't been changed, though. There's no mention of 9/11. I think they just don't care to update it. It's not as though the whole world wouldn't recognize him.

This has always been one of the silliest CT's to me. If there is some megalithic NWO controlling things, wouldn't they have the Osama "wanted" data updated on about 9/13/2001? And if that was an oversight, wouldn't they have updated it the first time some pimply faced post pubescent kid in his mom's basement pointed it out? They haven't touched it. Maybe just being stubborn, and maybe for some legal/technical subtlety as has often been speculated.

The bottom line is that the NWO seems to have no phone numbers at the FBI on their rolodexes. And the other bottom line is that it doesn't matter. It's just one of those silly issues that truth movement has blown completely out of proportion.

[T.A.M.]

The funny thing is, that if OBL was a CIA Asset, and hence being used as a weapon of terror and fear, you would think the NWO would have his FBi poster fully updated with all the horrendous crimes he committed, to evoke even more fear in people...right?

Where is Ron with his OBL conundrum

TAM:)

[BillyJoe]

Hey, you're making sense, you must be wrong!

[gumboot]

Talking about gullible..? Do you think NIST or a individual scienist could question the official version without getting fired?



NIST are the official version. If they concluded that the buildings were destroyed using a truck bomb, you and your "kin" would be trying to disprove it.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

Nice work. They should have updated Bin Laden´s page though. Make an exception etc.

Why?

-Gumboot

[Disbelief]

Talking about gullible..? Do you think NIST or a individual scienist could question the official version without getting fired?

Even though you still haven't answered how Clinton is on no way responsible, let's address this little point. It appears, like with mant CTists, that you are projecting your own reaction to a situation onto the scientists. If you were in a situation where you knew there was a huge comspiracy, you would say nothing for fear of being fired. Is that about right?

[TjW]

Even though you still haven't answered how Clinton is on no way responsible, let's address this little point. It appears, like with mant CTists, that you are projecting your own reaction to a situation onto the scientists. If you were in a situation where you knew there was a huge comspiracy, you would say nothing for fear of being fired. Is that about right?
No, I don't think that's quite right. It's not projection, it's heroic fantasy.

The whole point for the CTist is that they're not like everybody else.
So if they believe that they would do the right thing by coming forward, then obviously, most other people (the 'sheeple') wouldn't.

[ReverendNick]

What happened to PAGAN.
I was enjoying his reality. Hrrrrgggg!
Perhaps he's gathering evidence.?

[Civilized Worm]

Racism? Please... Killing 1 million Arabs in Iraq, that is racism.

So again, you choose to believe in the official conspiracy theory. About Ali baba Osama and the 19 cokeheads?

I have to say that this is very irrational.


And maybe once you've justified that you could answer my earlier questions you've been ignoring.

[skeptifem]

I can only interpret this as you choose to believe in the Dubya (proven liar) story instead of questioning it.

This makes you into a conspiracy theorist. Feel ashamed?



yes, because george bush is the sole source of information about 9/11 :rolleyes:

[BillyJoe]

What happened to PAGAN.
Perhaps he's gathering evidence.?


I hope he knows where to look.

http://www.torontoist.com/attachments/toronto_boy/2006_4_7kitten.jpg

[defaultdotxbe]

I hope he knows where to look.

http://www.torontoist.com/attachments/toronto_boy/2006_4_7kitten.jpg
http://pics.xbehome.com/albums/Upload/badday.jpg

nope, no evidence here

[Hokulele]

Nice work. They should have updated Bin Laden´s page though. Make an exception etc. Very lazy of them.


Did even more digging into this. The FBI only includes those formally charged with a crime or have a grand jury indictment against them for the crimes for which they are charged. As of today, OBL has been named as an "unindicted co-conspirator" in the federal case against Moussaoui for 9/11, but is not currently indicted himself for this crime. If formal charges are brought against him in the future and he remains a fugitive, I suppose the poster could change. Not lazy, not a conspiracy, just consistent.

I hope this helps clear it up for you. It was actually kind of fun looking into this.

[The Great Hairy One]

Pagan, you seem to have the idea that the sigificant word in "conspiracy theorist," the word that makes being a conspiracy theorist something that most people don't want to be, is "conspiracy." So if your explanation for an event involves a conspiracy (such as, among 19 or so terrorists and their leaders), that makes you a conspiracy theorist.

Actually, the real problem with being a conspiracy theorist is the "theorist" part. Being, or being regarded as, a "theorist" is almost never a good or desirable thing. Consider this example:

"Hey, I was thinking of hiring Sam to do some plumbing work for me. Is he a good plumber?"

"Well, he's a good plumbing theorist."

Would you hire Sam, based on that recommendation? I certainly wouldn't. Calling him a theorist implies that he can't do any actual plumbing, or can't do it well; he can only concoct theories about it.

And in almost all professions, including creative and technical ones, it's the same. To be called a "theorist" is almost always a clear implication that the person can only theorize, and cannot actually do anything useful to put theories into practice. I once didn't get a job that I very much wanted in my own creative field (computer game design) with the damning evaluation that I was "a good theorist," that is, I had published some interesting ideas about game design and presented some interesting ideas for specific designs, but I hadn't done enough to prove I would be able to execute them. (Unfortunately this was true, at the time.) The people who get to be called "theorists" without implied insult, as in "Alfred Hitchcock was a great film theorist," are the ones who have produced an impressive body of actual work to test their theories against the evidence and/or to put their theories into practice.

What about science? Science runs on theories, so one might think that being a good theorist would be a good recommendation for any scientist. Well, not quite. Not if the implication is that you're only a theorist. There are a few fields such as cosmology and particle physics where theorizing is so difficult that the field supports (a few) pure theorists. Every other scientist is expected to spend a lot more time testing and researching theories than concocting them. Few scientists' careers could survive becoming generally regarded as a "good theorist, poor researcher." The other way around is no problem, though, because most of the work in science is testing other people's theories.

What makes a conspiracy theorist is not investigating a theory involving a conspiracy, nor even concluding that such a theory is most likely correct; it's responding to questions by assuming an answer and then making up a theory to explain it, rather than testing proposed theories by investigating the evidence. The "conspiracy" part comes about almost by accident, beause a conspiracy can explain almost anything. So if you're spending all your time making up theories to explain conclusions you've already jumped to, they'll tend to end up being conspiracy theories.

Here's an example: The first time I visited this subforum, I read a claim that the lower part of the World Trade Center towers should have resisted the collapse of the upper part and remained standing. I did some research to find out the relevant masses, distances, and strength safety factors relevant to the question of whether the lower towers would have remained standing or not. I then did some calculations based on those quantities and determined that the dynamic load would far exceed what the structure could withstand, so the theory that the lower towers should have remained standing was falsified.

When a typical conspiracy theorist gets the notion (or is told) that the lower parts of the towers should have remained standing, he doesn't do what I did and investigate the claim. Instead he makes up a theory to explain the claim: "OMG, then there must have been demolitions charges in the towers." Which raises the question, how did the explosives get there? Now he needs another theory: "OMG, someone must have put them there." How, given the amount of explosives and the amount of access to the building that would have been required? Another theory: "OMG, there must have been a conspiracy."

At any point along that chain, you could do what I did and actually investigate the claim instead of explaining it with another layer of theory. I stopped to investigate at the first step: "Should the lower towers have remained standing?" But you could also investigate at the second: "Is there any evidence of explosives in the towers?" Or the third: "Is it possible that the buildings could have been secretly rigged for demolition without anyone noticing?" But no, conspiracy theorists cannot or do not do this, because they're only theorists. Their train of thought goes non-stop direct to "OMG there must have been a conspiracy."

And that, sir, is why you are a conspiracy theorist and I am not.

Respectfully,
Myriad


That's a most excellent post, Myriad (and I nominated you).

Pagan, your response to this post was severely lacking. Myriad has very clearly pointed out the difference between a theorist and a researcher. As he noted, a researcher actually performs research. They crunch numbers. They do experiments and gather data. They objectively examine the evidence.

Anyone can theorise. Producing theories is the work of moments. However, performing the research to back up these theories can take many, many years. As someone who has worked in the field of science, and who actually has proposed theories and done the work to bring them to life (no, they were discarded), I know it's not an easy or straightforward task.

You're trying to state that you and your fellow CTers are the "skeptics" of this scenario. The ones actually looking for the truth in this case. For this to be the fact, you and your fellow CTers need to be conducting actual research. You've proposed a theory - that 9/11 was an inside job or whatever - now you have to back this theory up with the calculations, the experiments, the actual work to support it.

For example, you and the CTers state that WTC7 was brought down by a controlled demolition. Rather than just sitting there parroting this view, you need to do some maths and some experimentation. Start by examining actual controlled demolitions. Detail the requirements of these demolitions, the work needed to blow the building up. Write things down. Take notes. Rather than relying on you-tube videos, go and watch some actual demolitions. Talk with engineers and experts. Do the legwork! Then do the maths part - work out what would be needed to bring WTC7 down. The time frames. The personnel required. Outline the window of opportunity. This is a lot of hard work, but until you do it, no one will take your theories seriously!

It's all fine and good to be an armchair theorist, but in order to have people actually recognise your theories as possible you need to actually do all the research to back them up.

Cheers,
TGHO

[PhantomWolf]

Hmmm, let's see. After 9/11 Bushy wanted to blame it on Iraq. Even when the Intelligence community and FBI were saying AQ, Bushy still wanted it to be Iraq and was determined to have AQ connected to Iraq so he could. I guess the offical story isn't Bushy's after all.

Now let's look further. Prior to NIST, the FEMA report was the best standing "offical version" thus if NIST couldn't disagree with the "offical version" they must have agreed with the FEMA report, right? Opps. Too bad they didn't isn't it.

So here we have it.

Bushy said he wants it pinned on Iraq, "Offical Story" is AQ.

and

NIST released a report that disagreed with the, then, Offical Version.

pagan, you're treading water about 12' under the surface, time to come up and take a breath of reality man.

[Liszt]

Did even more digging into this. The FBI only includes those formally charged with a crime or have a grand jury indictment against them for the crimes for which they are charged. As of today, OBL has been named as an "unindicted co-conspirator" in the federal case against Moussaoui for 9/11, but is not currently indicted himself for this crime. If formal charges are brought against him in the future and he remains a fugitive, I suppose the poster could change. Not lazy, not a conspiracy, just consistent.

I hope this helps clear it up for you. It was actually kind of fun looking into this.

Indeed it does. If you are ever unemployed Hokulele, I suggest you get a job at the FBI. :)

[BillyJoe]

Now where is that darn evidence.

http://www.sushiesque.com/photos/uncategorized/britain_cat_wash_lo_8412842_2.jpg

[Unsecured Coins]

He's getting his compy fixed
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v295/Jaye77/techcat.jpg

[TjW]

That would certainly explain the missing mouse.

[Hokulele]

Indeed it does. If you are ever unemployed Hokulele, I suggest you get a job at the FBI. :)


Nah, I've been happily self-employed for 10 years now. Ironically, most of my clients are people with questions and do not do the research themselves. Maybe they are just too lazy? :)

[BillyJoe]

Ironically, most of my clients are people with questions and do not do the research themselves. Maybe they are just too lazy? :)


http://enga.blox.pl/resource/lazy_cat.jpg

[Furcifer]

The naivette is beleiving that Engineers, who make massive studies of structural failure as part of their training, would be able to cover up anything for more than a few minutes.[/QUOTE]

absolutely. once one engineer in the class knows something they all know it. (no offense to the engineers meant)