Are 9/11 Truthers, Conspiracy Theorists?

[AClark]

The events sited above are conspiracies which came to light by following proper investigative techniques - previously described. They did not start out as CT's that were later validated by people using proper investigative techniques.

You are incorrect. I tried to limit the list to things where there was public discussion, whistle blowing or journalistic exposure of events that were denied by those responsible, and later proven to be true.

CTs are not restricted to accusations against govt that are false. CTS are accusations against agencies (govt, corporate, individual) that are denied and/or covered up.

The govt puts flouride in our water to mind control us is a CT.
The catholic church moved priests accused of paedophilia to different areas where the accusations were not known is a CT that was proven true.

Both were vigorously denied when first raised.

 

[AClark]

I always laugh at that list, because it's actually a testament to how many real conspiracies CTists missed while obsessing on imaginary conspiracies. The very kindest thing you can say about CTs is that they are a distraction from reality.

(ETA: So much for AClark's claim that he doesn't get his information from CT sites, too.)

Distraction.

It depends on your definitions.

 

[DGM]

That's a sweeping generalisation, and is how you would like things to be. The courts and history books are full of fit-ups, mistakes, patsies and all sorts. We had some cases in the UK where people sentenced and convicted for terrorist bombings were released after years in jail.

The arrest of Al Capone was a bona-fide conspiracy because they were desperate to arrest him for something. Just because he was a naughty boy, doesn't mean there wasn't a govt agency conspiracy to bring him down.

Likewise, during the times of the IRA, and even domestic disturbances like the miners strike in the UK, there were CTs about agent provocateurs and deep cover operatives which have since been proven.

All that aside, the very actions and responses of govt agencies often fuel such theories. When new facts or evidence is brought up, or errors are pointed out, the denials or rejections and attempts to discredit often do more harm than good. Often the simple refusal to consider the possibilities presented and issue revised statements is enough to bolster cries of cover-up or conspiracy.

Wasn't there a large CT around the use of Agent Orange?

What does anything you say have to do with 9/11 "truth" being a CT? "Truthers" are CT's because they believe in a conspiracy that has no evidence in support (CD). They want a new investigation to look into details they believe are important and hope this will lead to evidence to support their belief.

9/11 "truthers" base everything on the fact they know the "official story" is wrong and they need a new investigation to find the evidence to support this belief. Sounds nuts, huh?

 

[WilliamSeger]

You are incorrect. I tried to limit the list to things where there was public discussion, whistle blowing or journalistic exposure of events that were denied by those responsible, and later proven to be true.

Distraction.

It depends on your definitions.

Well, I draw a distinction between "conspiracy theory" and "theory about a conspiracy." Due directly to the behavior of conspiracy theorists themselves, "conspiracy theory" has come to mean an irrational and unsubstantiated yet near-religious belief in implausible paranoid speculation about The Powers That Be doing nefarious things for extremely vague or implausible reasons.

 

[pgimeno]

Their position isn't evidence based, it is ideological and egotistical.
It makes them special, part of an elite that know the truth, above the mass of Sheeple.

They ignore mountains of evidence and pick some small detail they think isn't explained or something that there is no evidence for.
This becomes their 'Smoking gun'
If it can't be explained to their satisfaction then verything else can be ignored and their own theory is by default true.
They don't want to learn or discuss, they want to keep the argument running. Anything that can be seen to support their position can be crowbared in to support it.

This. ^

That's not what a Poe is, by the way. We have had Poes around here (one or two that I can remember) and they made it clear that their position was a parody.

FalseFlag is a narcissist strongly affected by the Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

[Mark F]

You are incorrect. I tried to limit the list to things where there was public discussion, whistle blowing or journalistic exposure of events that were denied by those responsible, and later proven to be true.

CTs are not restricted to accusations against govt that are false. CTS are accusations against agencies (govt, corporate, individual) that are denied and/or covered up.

The govt puts flouride in our water to mind control us is a CT.
The catholic church moved priests accused of paedophilia to different areas where the accusations were not known is a CT that was proven true.

Both were vigorously denied when first raised.

None of this has anything to do with what I posted.

CT is a process of (non)thinking and belief, not restricted by any means to accusations against da gubmint. The events you describe were revealed through proper, non-CT investigative processes and were not lucky guess by CT's that were later proven true.

I always laugh at that list, because it's actually a testament to how many real conspiracies CTists missed while obsessing on imaginary conspiracies. The very kindest thing you can say about CTs is that they are a distraction from reality.

(ETA: So much for AClark's claim that he doesn't get his information from CT sites, too.)

Precisely. AClarks list is commonly bandied about by CT's and is actually a list of naughty things authorities did that real investigators caught and the CT's missed while they were babbling incoherent about the Liberty Incident being a "false flag" or the Mob/CIA/Soviets/LBJ offing JFK.

 

[pgimeno]

Do I have conclusive proof? No.

Exactly.

 

[AClark]

And that's where it all falls apart, if we can't agree on a definition.

 

[AClark]

None of this has anything to do with what I posted.

CT is a process of (non)thinking and belief, not restricted by any means to accusations against da gubmint. The events you describe were revealed through proper, non-CT investigative processes and were not lucky guess by CT's that were later proven true.



Precisely. AClarks list is commonly bandied about by CT's and is actually a list of naughty things authorities did that real investigators caught and the CT's missed while they were babbling incoherent about the Liberty Incident being a "false flag" or the Mob/CIA/Soviets/LBJ offing JFK.

Were they theories about conspiracies that were initially denied or covered up?

 

[DGM]

And that's where it all falls apart, if we can't agree on a definition.

OK. You say you don't believe in space beams and no planes but think CD has merit. These "theories" are all supported by the same amount of evidence but you dismiss only two, why?

 

[beachnut]

Were they theories about conspiracies that were initially denied or covered up?

American Revolution? What was the theory?

The A-Bomb project, what was the conspiracy theory?

The Church? What is the conspiracy theory?

Which ones do you want to take back?

You have conspiracy theories on 911... true

Are 9/11 Truthers, Conspiracy Theorists? Yes.

Are 9/11 Truthers, Conspiracy Theorists? try getting on topic, not making excuses for the idiotic claims of 911 truth by making up BS claims of CTs on events.

When will you define the "great speed", in the thread you ran away from when asked for numbers, and amounts? Is that a conspiracy theory, or a real conspiracy; is someone keeping you from doing the math?

 

[Andy_Ross]

OK. You say you don't believe in space beams and no planes but think CD has merit. These "theories" are all supported by the same amount of evidence but you dismiss only two, why?

Because Space Beams and No Planes would make him look too looney, although he has hinted at no planes at Shanksville and the Pentagon.

 

[AClark]

OK. You say you don't believe in space beams and no planes but think CD has merit. These "theories" are all supported by the same amount of evidence but you dismiss only two, why?

I'm not finished my research, so they aren't the same to me.

Some of you have been here for years, and have seen many things. I don't have the history you do, and I haven't seen a lot of the same things you have. I am operating on my own, therefore I therefore need to weed my way through the mire of conflicting accounts to find what I consider to be a conclusion that satisfies me.

I'm not saying there isn't an orbiting satellite utilising Tesla coils, launched during the star wars era, but until some sort of proof surfaces I can't entertain it as a viable theory.

On the other hand, there are many similarities between WTC7 and a controlled demolition, so it remains viable until I find out otherwise.

Many people, it appears, think that saying "Shut up, you're dumb", is enough to make people like me go away, whereas only completing my own processes will do that. This fly gets caught with honey, not vinegar.

 

[Myriad]

Was arresting Capone illegal? Was making bombs for the U.S. military illegal? If not, those weren't even conspiracies, let alone conspiracy theories.

What a world you must live in, where every cooperative activity is a conspiracy. Surgeons conspire with anesthesiologist and scrub nurses to operate on patients, families conspire to go on vacation, producers conspire to make movies, Girl Scouts conspire to sell you cookies...

 

[Axxman300]

The arrest of Al Capone was a bona-fide conspiracy because they were desperate to arrest him for something. Just because he was a naughty boy, doesn't mean there wasn't a govt agency conspiracy to bring him down.

I don't think you understand what a conspiracy is.

Elliot Ness and his team found an angle to arrest Capone on tax evasion. Eventually they would have built a case against him on other, more sexy crimes, but stopping him when they did saved lives.

And forget why Elliot Ness was brought in. The city if Chicago (mayor, police cheif) was in Capone's back-pocket (actual conspiracy BTW) and couldn't be trusted.

 

[DGM]

I'm not finished my research, so they aren't the same to me.

Fair enough.

I'm not saying there isn't an orbiting satellite utilising Tesla coils, launched during the star wars era, but until some sort of proof surfaces I can't entertain it as a viable theory.

On the other hand, there are many similarities between WTC7 and a controlled demolition, so it remains viable until I find out otherwise.

What made you discount the similarities to a space beam destruction?

Can you state what the "controlled demolition" theory actually is, I've never actually seen this done?

 

[Mark F]

Were they theories about conspiracies that were initially denied or covered up?

The list you cited were criminal conspiracies revealed through a process of evidence-based investigation. The "cover up" bit is irrelevant.

I have already explained the difference between criminal conspiracies and the pathalogical theorizing that defines CT belief. I do not know how to Fisher-Price it down any more than I have.

On the other hand, there are many similarities between WTC7 and a controlled demolition, so it remains viable until I find out otherwise.

Yes, the building collapses. Other than that, the differences between explosive controlled demolition and the collapse of 7 WTC far outweigh the similarities. Don't become so micro-focused on a detail that you lose track of that big-picture truism.

Also, remember the context of everything that occurred that day which I spelled out in another thread a day or two ago. 7 WTC was not attacked nor was it the subject of attack, therefore unless you are a forensic engineer the only possible interest you could have in it is as a CT trying to establish some nefarious plot to destroy for no plausible reason an unoccupied, unknown and unimportant building that wasn't subject to terror attack. And even there your interest in 7 WTC would only be due to the complete failure to prove nefarious secret plots to re-arrange real estate at the Twin Towers, Pentagon and Shanksville.

I personally no longer have any interest in chasing any of that.

 

[Axxman300]

And that's where it all falls apart, if we can't agree on a definition.

No, you just need to admit you've bought into a CT.

9-11 Truth is a Conspiracy Theory, nothing more.

Worse, it's not a very good one. Amateur Hour. All started because a small group of people have never seen a building collapse, let alone three. They argue physics and structural dynamics and all of the minutia while ignoring the primary facts. Two 767s slammed into each of the Twin Towers initiating everything that followed that day. It's really that simple. The structural stuff is important for people who design, build, and maintain skyscrapers. But you're never going to find a smoking gun in that data.

9-11 was an event that happened in broad daylight in front of a half million eye witnesses, 50,000+ of them being inside one of the many buildings at the World Trade Center complex. Troofers want me to believe that all of them are wrong. Troofers want me to believe that the NYD and the FDNY would willing look away and be silent about evidence of explosive charges being used in the collapse of the towers. Troofers want me to believe that none of the iron workers removing the wreckage saw nothing, that none of the FBI, ATF, or FEMA people saw anything or have been forced into silence when these same organizations will and have leaked information of lessor internal wrong-doings before and since 2001.

I just can't buy into that level of stupid.

And I'm not going to be nice about this. 9-11 Troofers have crippled the US anti-war movement in a way that should make real CTers smell a rat. All it takes is for the TV news to flash on a "911 was an Inside Job!" banner and the argument is over for 99% of Americans because the assumption is that if that's the level of intellectual discourse within the anti-war folks then they have zero grasp of the facts.

Those dead shop keepers in Iraq and Afghanistan you're crying about? Dead because 9-11 Truth made the wars a continued reality.

 

[AClark]

Those dead shop keepers in Iraq and Afghanistan you're crying about? Dead because 9-11 Truth made the wars a continued reality.

I don't know what brings you to this conclusion.

In what way has 9/11 truth had any impact on the WoT or its end?

 

[AClark]

The list you cited were criminal conspiracies revealed through a process of evidence-based investigation. The "cover up" bit is irrelevant.

The cover-up is part of what makes it a CT. As to the list, criminal is part of the discussion. MK Ultra was a government initiative. Watergate went as far as the President. When does it become criminal?