Are 9/11 Truthers, Conspiracy Theorists?

[Nick Terry]

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

A conspiracy theory is an explanatory or speculative hypothesis suggesting that two or more persons or an organization have conspired to cause or to cover up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an event or situation typically regarded as illegal or harmful. Since the mid-1960s, the phrase has denoted explanations that invoke conspiracies without warrant, often producing hypotheses that contradict the prevailing understanding of historical events or simple facts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

This is the commonly-accepted meaning of "conspiracy theory", and stands in sharp contrast to proven conspiracy.

A conspiracy theory is an unproven claim of conspiracy. As in: unsubstantiated, lacking in evidence, made up, fabricated, fantasised, whatever.

A real conspiracy can be taken to criminal court and would result in a conviction. A conspiracy theory would get thrown out of civil court, like many Birther and 9/11 Truther lawsuits.

A real conspiracy becomes an accepted fact across all relevant humanities (eg history) and social science disciplines, internationally. A conspiracy theory fails to do this, and is not infrequently promoted by emeriti appealing to claims from disciplines in which they have no training (eg James Fetzer, philosopher, or David Ray Griffin, theologian, resorting to various forms of techno-babble about 9/11).

There is of course a continuum and there are exceptions. Unsolved mysteries, like the assassination of Olof Palme, would be one example; there are many theories about this, none of which have been proven.

 

[beachnut]

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

Reasons why WTC 7 is not like CD. It was NOT CD, which would be the Occam Razor answer, when we find out it was fire... cool what real evidence leads to, vs BS and opinions of woo, and the old inside job based on biases against the USA. Still upset about 1776?

Zero similarities. I have never seen a CD on fire for 7 hours before they try to blow up charges that would have "cooked off". Really a dumb thing to mix fire and CD... extra credit stupid.

No such thing as silent explosives, except for 911 truth delusion of CD. Where do you guys get the silent explosives for the fantasy of CD? Is there a silent explosive store?

CD are gravity collapses like WTC 7, with tiny amounts of explosives (which make sounds of explosives, not sounds of explosions) set to guide the gravity collapse; The over all energy in a gravity collapse is due to gravity, the same is for CD. CD destruction is based on releasing E=mgh used to destroy the structure in CD.

No evidence was found for CD, no body who set explosives in WTC 7 has come forward, or was discovered by the FBI... 14 years, who is keeping secrets this good, must be all dead. How many set your silent explosives in your conspiracy theory of CD for WTC 7? How many people were used to set explosives in your CD fantasy? How did they remain silent, like their explosives for 14 years?

No explosives used, because there was no evidence of blast effects on steel, or people.... oh darn, no CD.

No left over evidence for explosives, not even thermite, or super nano-thermite; just big talk by nuts who claim it was CD, thermite, and silent explosives.

I can't think of one thing that looks like CD about WTC 7, except failed newscasters offering BS opinions based on BS. Not the first time you fell for BS from the media...

"Looks like CD" is not evidence for CD; it is called simile, not evidence.

... back to topic
Are 9/11 Truthers, Conspiracy Theorists?
Yes, and CD of WTC 7 is a conspiracy theory, with extra credit woo, and born in the ability to ignore reality.

Like the alive terrorists, when 911 truth followers use evidence, the CD will melt into the BS it was based on,,, nothing.


Are 9/11 Truthers, Conspiracy Theorists? CD is a conspiracy theory based on BS. The answer remain yes.

 

[ProBonoShill]

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

I'll save you the trouble, 9/11 truth is idiotic.

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.

You're right some of us have been doing this for years and we've seen those JAQING off come and go, you weren't the first and sadly won't be the last, but thankfully truther morons are a dying breed.

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.

Awesome, so using that rational you must think anyone believing in the CD of Buildings 1, 2 and 7 is a complete idiot.

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

Oh dear just when I was getting my hopes up. Please list the similarities in detail, when you're done, try listing the things that are different.

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.

Who cares? Do you really think our world revolves around whether or not you have the cognitive abilities to figure out simple science? If you want to remain ignorant that's your problem.

Personally I'm here for the free entertainment and you're providing lots of it.

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.

Precisely, couldn't agree more.

 

[Mark F]

The cover-up is part of what makes it a CT.

Nonsense.

Unless you want to argue that actual conspiracies can not have the culprit trying to avoid getting caught,... but that seems a bit daft.

What makes a CT a CT is the bass-ackwards logic used. Conspiracy theorists work the problem backwards and manipulate the "evidence" to support a pre-conceived conclusion consistent with their personal ideologies/beliefs. Real investigators start with a clean slate and work the known evidence to reach an informed conclusion.

I can't make it any simpler than that.

Conspiracies and criminal conspiracies are real. They happen all the time in large and small scales. Because they are real they can be proven by following the evidence to a logical conclusion. THAT is how we learned about things like Watergate and the Church sex scandals.

A conspiracy theory is a conjecture that starts with the answer that best suits the needs of the person proposing it, based on little or no evidence, then devolves from there.

 

[JSanderO]

Looks like is not IS... CDs are collapses... they look like it too... WTC7 looks like a building collapse.

 

[Georgio]

Who cares?

I would guess those posters who actually want to educate and correct misunderstandings.

Do you really think our world revolves around...

Love it - 'our world'. Speak for yourself please. There are people here whose main aim is indeed to help the misinformed to a better understanding.

 

[Mark F]

Looks like is not IS... CDs are collapses... they look like it too... WTC7 looks like a building collapse.

Precisely. 7 WTC looks like what a building looks like when a building collapses. Fire, corrosion, mechanical failure or explosives are just a means to get the building to start moving. Once moving gravity does all the work so there is no reason why a building collapse caused by A should not look a whole lot like a building collapse caused by B.

The problem is that buildings don't collapse very often and are even less likely to be caught on camera while doing so unless it is being made to collapse on purpose. Our brains are wired to recognize patterns and the only pattern most people know for a building collapsing is intentional destruction.

 

[FalseFlag]

FF what sites did you turn for in your quest for the truth about 9/11. Did you read the 911freeforums:

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/index.php

This one is pretty good and objective and the discussions are not sling fests of insults.

Thanks for the link.

My position is solid, though, and it won't change. We need an independent, completely open, investigation into the collapses of the WTC buildings.

 

[FalseFlag]

Precisely. 7 WTC looks like what a building looks like when a building collapses.

Based on what examples? Are you saying that WTC1 and WTC2 are not what a building is supposed to look like when it collapses? What other steel-framed high rise has collapsed? If no other similar structures have collapsed, how do you know what it was supposed to look like? The collapses of WTC1 and WTC2 look nothing like the collapse of WTC7.

I know you're going to argue with me, but you should just admit you dug yourself into a hole with your statement.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Thanks for the link.

My position is solid, though, and it won't change. We need an independent, completely open, investigation into the collapses of the WTC buildings.

Suppose your new enquiry comes to the same conclusion that collision damage and fire caused the buildings to collapse and that four aircraft flown by terrorists caused the damage.

What then?

 

[JSanderO]

Based on what examples? Are you saying that WTC1 and WTC2 are not what a building is supposed to look like when it collapses? What other steel-framed high rise has collapsed? If no other similar structures have collapsed, how do you know what it was supposed to look like? The collapses of WTC1 and WTC2 look nothing like the collapse of WTC7.

I know you're going to argue with me, but you should just admit you dug yourself into a hole with your statement.

Things that collapse fall straight down. Why should a steel frame not collapse down? Or a concrete frame... what does the height have to do with the "form of collapse"...

Structures work against gravity... they take energy to erect energy to collapse them... gravity.

You think high rises are exempt from gravitational collapse?

Your trap is that you think they are too strong to collapse... but what is too strong to fail? A beam to column connection? Surely it can fail if the load exceeds its capacity. What happens once the load exceeds capacity?

Do you understand how complex systems will exhibit runaway progressive collapses? They are not designed to arrest... too expensive... too impractical.

Uncontrolled fires distort the frame members, fracture member connections and this is how it begins... and it grows very rapidly worse very fast.

 

[AClark]

My position is solid, though, and it won't change.

That's not a good place to be, it denies openness to new information.

 

[DGM]

That's not a good place to be, it denies openness to new information.

He's fine with this because you need to prove him wrong. Good luck.

 

[Mark F]

Thanks for the link.

My position is solid, though, and it won't change. We need an independent, completely open, investigation into the collapses of the WTC buildings.

So then what is the point of a completely open investigation if your position will not change?

See AClark, this is what I mean by conspiracy theory (non)thinking.

 

[AClark]

Precisely. 7 WTC looks like what a building looks like when a building collapses. Fire, corrosion, mechanical failure or explosives are just a means to get the building to start moving. Once moving gravity does all the work so there is no reason why a building collapse caused by A should not look a whole lot like a building collapse caused by B.

This is rubbish.

Mostly, as seen on lots of other buildings in the WTC area on 9/11, buildings partially collapse. Even when bombed, just look at Oklahoma.

Or they take damage, many are later brought down, or repaired. Plenty of examples.

So no, building collapses do not look the same, especially on 9/11.

 

[Mark F]

Based on what examples? Are you saying that WTC1 and WTC2 are not what a building is supposed to look like when it collapses? What other steel-framed high rise has collapsed? If no other similar structures have collapsed, how do you know what it was supposed to look like? The collapses of WTC1 and WTC2 look nothing like the collapse of WTC7.

I know you're going to argue with me, but you should just admit you dug yourself into a hole with your statement.

Not surprisingly, you omitted the most critical consideration (probably deliberately) in order to invent an artificial gotcha moment that you thought I might fall for.

This is why I don't debate specifics of 9/11 CT anymore. I am happy to talk about the nature of conspiracy (non)thinking in general but I'm done debating with conspiracy theorists on 9/11 related issues because crap like what you just pulled is the inevitable result.

This is rubbish.

Mostly, as seen on lots of other buildings in the WTC area on 9/11, buildings partially collapse. Even when bombed, just look at Oklahoma.

Or they take damage, many are later brought down, or repaired. Plenty of examples.

So no, building collapses do not look the same, especially on 9/11.

I never said (all) building collapses look the same. Again, thank you for reminding me why I don't debate CT's on 9/11 related technical issues anymore.

 

[AClark]

This is the commonly-accepted meaning of "conspiracy theory", and stands in sharp contrast to proven conspiracy.

A conspiracy theory is an unproven claim of conspiracy. As in: unsubstantiated, lacking in evidence, made up, fabricated, fantasised, whatever.

A real conspiracy can be taken to criminal court and would result in a conviction. A conspiracy theory would get thrown out of civil court, like many Birther and 9/11 Truther lawsuits.

A real conspiracy becomes an accepted fact across all relevant humanities (eg history) and social science disciplines, internationally. A conspiracy theory fails to do this, and is not infrequently promoted by emeriti appealing to claims from disciplines in which they have no training (eg James Fetzer, philosopher, or David Ray Griffin, theologian, resorting to various forms of techno-babble about 9/11).
.

So what happens, if someone has a conspiracy theory, and is later vindicated?

Like when I said, many years ago, before it started (and from a UK perspective), that the war in Afghanistan was about Gas and gas pipelines, and that Iraq was about oil and contracts? I couldn't prove it, I couldn't take it to court. In fact I personally still can't prove it or take it to court. Doesn't mean I'm wrong or insane.

When I said, before the invasion, that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and that it was a false pretext for war. That was a conspiracy theory at that time. What is it now? Just a conspiracy that happened, or is it just politics and history?

Many of what you deem conspiracies were, before proven, conspiracy theories. You just don't want to call them that, because they weren't unsubstantiated nonsense by people wearing tin foil hats.

 

[AClark]

I never said (all) building collapses look the same. Again, thank you for reminding me why I don't debate CT's on 9/11 related technical issues anymore.

Take 9/11 out of the equation. Fire, bombing, CD, Earthquake, Tornado, Hurricane, subsidence...

Buildings fully or partially collapse in different ways, for different reasons, and because they are built differently. There are some patterns within those though.

The largest pattern for a building falling more or less straight down as a unit in short order is CD.

Fires gut buildings, some collapse depending on construction methods and circumstance.

Bombs tend to leave bloody big holes, followed by no, partial or total collapse.

Tornadoes tend to scatter lighter buildings, or tear bits off larger ones and throw them. Hurricanes often do the same, but a bit more directional.

Earthquakes can make buildings topple or pancake, depending on various factors.

This is not an exhaustive list, and by no means comprehensive, but it does suggest patterns.

 

[DGM]

Fires gut buildings, some collapse depending on construction methods and circumstance.

So, what is your problem with this happening on 9/11?

 

[beachnut]

... Many of what you deem conspiracies were, before proven, conspiracy theories. You just don't want to call them that, because they weren't unsubstantiated nonsense by people wearing tin foil hats.

Really, which ones? Watergate, not a CT, it was a real event... took less than a year to figure out, using evidence.

that the war in Afghanistan was about Gas and gas pipelines

LOL, red rover, red rover, send UBL right over...

lol, and your evidence?

Is fluoride your CT too? OR is it flouride?

Do you make up CTs about all USA stuff in a world of bias and BS.

... The US needs another civil war, ...

Is this the next CT?

... Seriously, a plane, in that hole? You are kidding me right? ...

What is the CT on this BS?

At least you made a long list of why WTC 7 was not CD. Did you drop the CD CT?