Hello JREF, I bring you "Tin Foil"!

[Panoply_Prefect]

Yep, welcome here and I agree CTs are their own worst enemy. Not always because of the theories they put forth, but equally often for their bonehardiness to never retract from things proven wrong (Never say "I was wrong" - ever) and that for some reason they go to extreme length never to acknowledge anything from the official version as being correct.


I've always wanted to ask; How does the CT community go about defining which theories are "bad" and which are "good"? (Look for instance on the Fetzer-Jones fight). Or is the approach always "embrace all but the official one" (all those CT's I've been debating with seem to use this practise)

Cheers,
SLOB

 

[Nick Terry]

Heh, don't flame him too bad just yet.

Skepticguy, so you're basically saying that the 9/11 Truth movement isn't really an echt conspiracy theory? Whereas there are other conspiracy theories which are more 'genuinely' conspiracist? You say that the 9/11 Truthers are really more anti-establishment than anything else...

I'm curious, elaborate.

 

[beachnut]

The "Truth Movement" was founded on good ideas and intentions, but the predominant ranks of activists have severely hurt their cause. Let's be honest, many of the people actively involved in "9/11 Truth" would be out protesting the World Bank or similar issues if not for 9/11 and the Iraq war. These people are not conspiracy theorists, they're anti-establishment activists who have latched onto a conspiracy-driven issue.

The "movement" is besieged on all sides by:
1) Conspiracy profiteers promoting provocative theories to sell stuff
2) Politically passional activists seeking to protest almost anything
3) Attention seekers looking to draw a crowd with wild theories
4) Truly disturbed people with outlandish claims
5) And divisive manipulation by "gov'ment" meddling

Yes, even though I'm a skeptical critical-thinking conspiracy theorist, I have seen firm evidence to support #5, and we conspiracy folks have been documenting what has been popularized as "COINTELPRO" for decades (though that old-style term is now far too simplistic).

I've also met some honest-to-goodness 9/11 Truth people who really are trying to do good... and dislike many of the more provocative theories associated with their movement.

Do you have one fact or expert to present on 9/11 truth?

Can you point out errors in the NIST reports?

Can you tell me why flight 93 is a classic high speed aircraft impact?

Fact? So far you are just talk like LC and Griffin.

 

[David Wong]

SkepticGuy,

You strike me as the type who will desperately dance around any specific claims, for fear those claims will be debunked with actual information. I'll be interested to hear you make some actual assertions.

I know lots of conspiracy types do it for the entertainment value, digging past the mainstream "truth" for the real truth, thinking outside the box. But with the 9/11 "truth" movement you have accusations of mass murder and vast cooperation with that mass murder, accusing literally thousands of people of being bloodthirsty sociopaths. Some of the accused are firemen and rescue workers, others are families of 9/11 victims, others are innocent witnesses to the events.

Guys who like to post on websites and analyze fuzzy photos of bigfoot or UFO's, I have no problem with those people. They're trying to make boring lives interesting. But the 9/11 CTers have taken an extra, ugly step toward accusing actual human beings and heroes of horrific crimes, and laughing about it.

So anyone who straddles over into that territory with vague language and reluctance to criticize, is keeping some horrible, ugly, hateful company. And it's hard for us to respect anyone who does that.

 

[SkepticGuy]

I hope you're not here to mount some kind of defense, or rationale, for being a conspiracy theorist. You'll be flamed rather rapidly. Possibly the only "defense" for being a conspiracy theory believer is youth.

Not for defense, but perhaps to initiate some level of understanding.

After... most "Truthers" hate our site because our members, while conspiracy theorists, tend to be skeptical and agnostic... resulting in threads like this:
www-dot-abovetopsecret-dot-com/forum/thread79655/pg1

As for "belief" in conspiracy theory being "tied to youth", I think that's an inaccurate generalization based on perhaps some misinformation. After all, there have been real events in history that we "conspiracy theory" before being confirmed... such as Watergate, Iran-Contra, FBI creating the LA gang wars, to name a few recent ones. This is certainly not to say every theory speculated on sites like ATS are true... only that some the speculation is based on observable facts.

 

[uk_dave]

So, you're like alex jones, but with a brain?

 

[Nick Terry]

Not for defense, but perhaps to initiate some level of understanding.

After... most "Truthers" hate our site because our members, while conspiracy theorists, tend to be skeptical and agnostic... resulting in threads like this:
www-dot-abovetopsecret-dot-com/forum/thread79655/pg1

As for "belief" in conspiracy theory being "tied to youth", I think that's an inaccurate generalization based on perhaps some misinformation. After all, there have been real events in history that we "conspiracy theory" before being confirmed... such as Watergate, Iran-Contra, FBI creating the LA gang wars, to name a few recent ones. This is certainly not to say every theory speculated on sites like ATS are true... only that some the speculation is based on observable facts.

Guys, lap it up. Split in the CTist ranks between O.G. mutha[rule8]as like Skepticguy here and widddle baby woowoos like Do-Over.

Seriously, stop flaming him and let's hear what he has to say. So why are the abovetopsecret.com people different to the 'Truthers'?

 

[Nick Terry]

So, you're like alex jones, but with a brain?

Meh. Nicely put.

 

[beachnut]

Not for defense, but perhaps to initiate some level of understanding.

After... most "Truthers" hate our site because our members, while conspiracy theorists, tend to be skeptical and agnostic... resulting in threads like this:
www-dot-abovetopsecret-dot-com/forum/thread79655/pg1

As for "belief" in conspiracy theory being "tied to youth", I think that's an inaccurate generalization based on perhaps some misinformation. After all, there have been real events in history that we "conspiracy theory" before being confirmed... such as Watergate, Iran-Contra, FBI creating the LA gang wars, to name a few recent ones. This is certainly not to say every theory speculated on sites like ATS are true... only that some the speculation is based on observable facts.

You are suppose to use facts and make a case like Watergate.

You are not suppose to make up stuff and lie to bring us the Non-CT on 9/11.

There are big difference between finding a CT and making up CT.

CTer on 9/11 are dumb. The guys who broke Watergate are Pulitzer Prize winners.

CTers on 9/11 are dumb lemmings at best.

 

[beachnut]

Guys, lap it up. Split in the CTist ranks between O.G. mutha[rule8]as like Skepticguy here and widddle baby woowoos like Do-Over.

Seriously, stop flaming him and let's hear what he has to say. So why are the abovetopsecret.com people different to the 'Truthers'?

He is just talking feel-good truther rant to cover the lack of facts. The web forum abovetopsecret has some idiot truthers and some truthful humans. Both are there.

Nothing new or insightful. Just talk on how they have no facts in the truth movement. zip

 

[SkepticGuy]

I've always wanted to ask; How does the CT community go about defining which theories are "bad" and which are "good"? (Look for instance on the Fetzer-Jones fight). Or is the approach always "embrace all but the official one" (all those CT's I've been debating with seem to use this practise)

It's hard. Generally, we've had success with the sheer quantity of varied opinions contributing to discussions. The more we see a productive mix of skeptical critical thinking and speculative "dot connecting" is where we see answers coming from. But it's rarely instant.

 

[beachnut]

It's hard. Generally, we've had success with the sheer quantity of varied opinions contributing to discussions. The more we see a productive mix of skeptical critical thinking and speculative "dot connecting" is where we see answers coming from. But it's rarely instant.

Yes we already know the truth movement is based on fiction. Just idiots making up lies. What do you have that is not made up or lies?

Do you have any experts or facts from 9/11 truth?

Fact, do you have any? And why are you void of facts on 9/11?

 

[SkepticGuy]

SkepticGuy,
Guys who like to post on websites and analyze fuzzy photos of bigfoot or UFO's, I have no problem with those people. They're trying to make boring lives interesting. But the 9/11 CTers have taken an extra, ugly step toward accusing actual human beings and heroes of horrific crimes, and laughing about it.

I agree with much of that... in fact, one of my old podcasts touches on that very point:
We shouldn't want conspiracy theories.
www-dot-abovetopsecret-dot-com/forum/thread169758/pg1
(It's an early effort, the quality sucks)

There are indeed far too many people involved in "9/11 Truth" who are enjoying being activist and yelling at people on street corners. However, I do not classify these people as conspiracy theorists... they're activists and it's a very different mindset.

 

[ConspiRaider]

Not for defense, but perhaps to initiate some level of understanding.

After... most "Truthers" hate our site because our members, while conspiracy theorists, tend to be skeptical and agnostic... resulting in threads like this:
www-dot-abovetopsecret-dot-com/forum/thread79655/pg1

As for "belief" in conspiracy theory being "tied to youth", I think that's an inaccurate generalization based on perhaps some misinformation. After all, there have been real events in history that we "conspiracy theory" before being confirmed... such as Watergate, Iran-Contra, FBI creating the LA gang wars, to name a few recent ones. This is certainly not to say every theory speculated on sites like ATS are true... only that some the speculation is based on observable facts.

You've used the terms "conspiracy theorists" and "skeptical" as if they go together like ham on rye. They don't. The CT mindset and the skeptical mindset are radically different. You might just as well have said: I'm an atheistic Roman Catholic.

My mention of youth concerning conspiracy theory belief was in the context of a tenuous defense, or rationale, for such beliefs. Transitional. Evaluation of events with which we've had no participation is a complex affair. Wisdom, experience, thought-pattern-recognition and so forth are simply less-developed in the young mind. The pathways in the brain may not exist yet. Therefore, CT belief during youth can be somewhat rationalized as a transit phase. I went through such a phase in my late teens, early twenties. But I kept moving along, and eventually hauled myself up onto the opposite river bank of true skepticism.

 

[Pardalis]

I think I'm starting to understand where you come from (I'm sorry I never read your site before).

Correct me if I'm wrong:

You call yourselves conspiracy theorists because for any given event, you try and see an alternative theory (just for the sake of it or for intellectual curiosity), then you test it out and if it turns out bunk, then you conclude that there is no conspiracy?

That seems about reasonable to me.

Troofers on the other hand are true believers, and no matter what the evidence tells them, they won't bugde one centimeter form their stance.

 

[SkepticGuy]

dude... you're really riding me here... I'm getting to these as best I can...

Yes we already know the truth movement is based on fiction.

There is a lot of 9/11 conspiracy speculation that sprung from poorly researched ideas from within the "Truth Movement" ... yes.

Just idiots making up lies.

I understand your frustration, but it's possible to express dissatisfaction with groups of people without being insulting.

What do you have that is not made up or lies?

In the history of conspiracy research, there are patterns that raise eyebrows...

I'm sure you've seen information on Operation Northwoods... a "False Flag" plan to use simulated Cuban terrorists to initiate an invasion of Cuba. This was confirmed as a suggestion the Join Chiefs presented to Kennedy as a way to being war with Cuba. There are striking similarities with the events of 9/11... none of which require bombs in buildings, pods on planes, or cruise missiles.

Do you have any experts or facts from 9/11 truth?

I'm not from 9/11 Truth.

 

[Pardalis]

You've used the terms "conspiracy theorists" and "skeptical" as if they go together like ham on rye. They don't. The CT mindset and the skeptical mindset are radically different. You might just as well have said: I'm an atheistic Roman Catholic.

From what I can tell, Skepticguy is like an alternative historian. Not because he believes History is a lie, but for him it's somekind of intellectual fascination with alternative theories, which I think is reasonable and legitimate.

At least he is not claiming to know the "Truth", and not accusing anyone. He just seems to be curious.

Am I right Skeptiguy?

 

[SkepticGuy]

You call yourselves conspiracy theorists because for any given event, you try and see an alternative theory (just for the sake of it or for intellectual curiosity), then you test it out and if it turns out bunk, then you conclude that there is no conspiracy?

That's reasonably close... but it's more because many of our members know there have been, are, and will continue to be conspiracies that range from irresponsibly stupid to catastrophically criminal... and most feel compelled to understand which:
1) Are conspiracies
2) Are not conspiracies
3) Need more data before it fits into #1 or #2

Troofers on the other hand are true believers, and no matter what the evidence tells them, they won't bugde one centimeter form their stance.

Actually, the type people you seem to be referring to are looking for information that supports their theories, and ignoring any information that refutes it. This activity is what has given "conspiracy theorists" a very bad rap lately.

 

[beachnut]

dude... you're really riding me here... I'm getting to these as best I can...

There is a lot of 9/11 conspiracy speculation that sprung from poorly researched ideas from within the "Truth Movement" ... yes.

I understand your frustration, but it's possible to express dissatisfaction with groups of people without being insulting.

In the history of conspiracy research, there are patterns that raise eyebrows...

I'm sure you've seen information on Operation Northwoods... a "False Flag" plan to use simulated Cuban terrorists to initiate an invasion of Cuba. This was confirmed as a suggestion the Join Chiefs presented to Kennedy as a way to being war with Cuba. There are striking similarities with the events of 9/11... none of which require bombs in buildings, pods on planes, or cruise missiles.



I'm not from 9/11 Truth.

Northwoods was not done; most likely an idiot like the truthers in the military making it easy to see he has reached his level of dumbness. You bring up a stupid plan never done. Then you make 9/11 look like it. You are the most disrespectful truther there is. No facts just talk tell people we killed our own people.

Listen, read, You have no facts you must have facts to make these points. FACTS. You have no facts and make up junk.

Show me facts on 9/11. Northwoods is a red flag that you have no facts.

Nice talk but no facts. You imply false ideas with your lies.

Do you have any facts or experts with anything on 9/11?

I am not the one without facts you are. So you need to be frustrated that you only have lies to work with.

You come with the standard CT junk. No facts just lies. That is your slogan; no facts, just lies.

 

[walthrup48]

5) And divisive manipulation by "gov'ment" meddling

Yes, even though I'm a skeptical critical-thinking conspiracy theorist, I have seen firm evidence to support #5, and we conspiracy folks have been documenting what has been popularized as "COINTELPRO" for decades (though that old-style term is now far too simplistic).

That's interesting. Can you provide examples of this 'firm evidence'?