What is a conspiracy theorist?

[pagan]

Is Pomeroo an anagram for "More Poo"?

It certainly looks like it, from your posting

 

[pagan]

Dubblepost

 

[Horatius]

Is Pomeroo an anagram for "More Poo"?

It certainly looks like it, from your posting

No, it's an anagram for "Poo more", his subtle encouragement to you to continue posting.

 

[Horatius]

See what happened there? You didn't answer the questions asked, and instead adressed yourself to the end of the post, the part that mentioned what he'd think of you if you didn't answer the questions asked. Then you went beyond that and re-stated your position without providing the requested evidence. That's where you are losing people. (oh, and insulting the entire forum while condemning the forum for being insulting is nervier than I can manage)

You are right, this isn't a debate. In a debate both sides come to the table with evidence that backs their position and evaluate not only the position of their opponent, but whether the evidence that position is based on is sound. Without evidence you cannot have a debate.

I'll also chime in encouraging you to use the search function to answer your question. Many times many theories have been hashed out in these forums, and scientific evaluation of scientific questions is found throughout. If you want an answer to a question it's really worth your time to read through previous threads on the issues, it would also help you get a handle on how the forum functions and the general etiquette. I've been lurking for more than a year myself... it really does help to figure out where things stand sometimes before leaping in feet first hoping for a soft landing.

Quoting the whole thing for emphasis.

This is the sort of thing new posters should be doing. This new guy only has 2 posts as of now, but it's clear s/he has been reading this forum for some time, and has learned a bit about the culture and expectations here. That helps avoid some of the more obvious mistakes that are made.

 

[pagan]

No, it's an anagram for "Poo more", his subtle encouragement to you to continue posting.

Thx, should I consider this as encouragement?

 

[pomeroo]

[=pagan;2408784]Is Pomeroo an anagram for "More Poo"?

It certainly looks like it, from your posting

The great minds at 911blogger.com find this question so hilarious that they ask it over and over.

By the way, Pagan, what actual evidence have the conspiracy liars produced in five years of deranged screaming?

 

[Dave Rogers]

You're lying again, Pagan. No natural laws were suspended on 9/11. You know nothing about the science involved and refuse to make any effort to learn.

Yes, but David Ray Griffin said they were, so like a true independent thinker of the truth movement he's repeating the leader's words.

Dave

 

[Horatius]

Thx, should I consider this as encouragement?

Hey, I'm not him, I'm just translating.

 

[Without Rights]

Even if he claims to be a "researcher" he will never do any first hand research. He won't go to Dallas, the crash site in Pennsylvania, or the Moon*. He'll investigate using second or third hand sources - and they'll be, by preference, visual rather than texttual.

So ordinary people who have no opportunity to witness first hand the evidence have no right to have an opinion, and if they do they are CT's? Have you visited the crash site lately?

He won't comment on matters where he has any personal knowlege or experience. If he's commenting on the "magic bullet", you can be sure he's never worked with ballistics.

This ignores many forensic experts of our time and the 60's who have commented on the magic bullet as being unlikely. You can counteract by calling them CT's but that still makes this point moot.

He'll be verbose, and impossible to pin down.

Most experts are verbose as well, you can't make a distinction of truth based on whether the person is verbose in his allegations

He'll ignore corrections to factual errors, even when they've been pointed out and even when he's accepted the correction.

Only when he doesn't find the explaination suitable. There are many arguments that counter the official explaination on JFK's murder. If an expert has made a statement that contradicts the official explantion then they are labelled a CT and discredited, that works for everybody on everything.

He regards himself as having an insight denied to the ordinary sheep.

So the news is 100% trustworthy in thier reporting and the majority of American know the true nature of politics?

He will apply non sequitors ruthlessly. Do you really think no government ever told lies about anything ever? So WTC7 must have been demolished.

I get that on both sides, such as a comment like. "Do you really think the government would hurt thier own economy",

Paradoxically, he has a touching faith in government and officialdom. He can't believe that buildings designed to withstand an aircraft impact might not do so. He can't believe that the Pentagon wasn't protected by a ring of missiles. If the government tells you to keep quiet, of course you'll keep quiet.

These are not paradoxes. If little johnny kills somebody and covers his tracks real well, but makes a mistake that gets him arrested can the defense say "that couldn't have been Johnny that made that mistake, look how well he covered up all the other details, you think he would be that stupid"

He has no faith in determined individuals. No way could one guy with a gun shoot the president.

That is not true. I have never heard anyone say they don't believe in the lone gunman theory because "one person couldn't pull it off". Rather because anomolies such as the video evidence showing JFK's his head pop backwards and matter flying out from the back.

He's patriotic. No way could a bunch of dirty, ignorant arabs take over a plane full of Americans.

Never heard that one either. But a more logical "I wouldn't have gave up my life because I was threatened with a box cutter" is reasonable because I feel like if I had been in the plane I would of done something.

He will show no understanding of objectivity whatsoever.Feel free to add to this.

Your map for objectivity is saturated in a egotistical bias. It would be the same statement if you said; "If someone disagrees with me, they have no understanding of objectivity."

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I call

 

[SkepticGuy]

I would rather join another forum where I don't get bashed. It is too hard to take an insult lying down, it is my nature to fight back.

AboveTopSecret.com embraces a critical look at conspiracy theory, while also embracing conspiracy theorists.

This board, "JREF", is largely responsible for the evolution of the acronym, "CTer", being a derogatory label.

In reality, there are lots of people that believe there are conspiracies...

There are lots of conspiracy theorists that believe almost any theory...

But there has always been serious conspiracy theorists who doubt "official" versions of anything, and naturally wonder what influences current events, and what has influenced history up until this point.

It's okay to be a conspiracy theorist... just not when you're posting at JREF.

 

[Horatius]

Question are always based on ignorance. If I was knowledgable of the issue then I wouldn't have questions, so by default if I merely ask a question I am ignorant to the answer. The real problem is in the way the questions are handled.

Yes, questions are based on ignorance. But asking questions based on ignorance that can be easily fixed is one of the hallmarks of the CT mindset. They are unable or unwilling to find for themselves the answers that have already been provided.

As an example, consider these two later statements of yours:

That is not true. I have never heard anyone say they don't believe in the lone gunman theory because "one person couldn't pull it off". Rather because anomolies such as the video evidence showing JFK's his head pop backwards and matter flying out from the back.

Never heard that one either. But a more logical "I wouldn't have gave up my life because I was threatened with a box cutter" is reasonable because I feel like if I had been in the plane I would of done something.

Both of these betray a fundamental ignorance of the arguments that have been going on here and elsewhere for months or years. The fact that you're unaware of this should indicate to you that you should do some more reading on your own time before coming here and demanding we all answer your questions.

 

[SkepticGuy]

Both of these betray a fundamental ignorance of the arguments that have been going on here and elsewhere for months or years. The fact that you're unaware of this should indicate to you that you should do some more reading on your own time before coming here and demanding we all answer your questions.

The fact that arguments exist for or against attributes of oddities in the JFK assassination does not automatically imply one conclusion over the other. If anything, it reinforces the notion that satisfactory conclusions have not yet been achieved.

Following that thought, by extension, the issues that many have with the 9/11 report indicate that there is a lack of a satisfactory conclusion. And we need not traverse down the rabbit hole of "Alex Jones" and "9/11 Truth" to find those who are dissatisfied with the conclusions. Somewhere between the information of the report, and the most extreme dissatisfaction lies the truth... and that truth may likely involve conspiracies of some level. Such is the "mind space" of a serious conspiracy theorist... not "twooofers", not "CTers", not people ignoring logic... but conspiracy theorists who apply critical thought to provocative questions.

 

[beachnut]

I don't think 911 was an inside job, but I question the official account, does that make me a CTer? I am not rep or dem, so am I a CTer? I think corporatations brainwash people with the TV so they will buy their products and the image potrayed in the commercial along with it, much in the fashion of Noam Chomsky, does that make me and him a CT?

I thought I would get intellegent responses but they are actually few and far between (I have met some very intuitive and intelligent people), between the slander and name calling. And then when I get mad and start name calling back I get S*** for that also.

Some of you claim you run people off this forum with facts that contradict their beliefs, I beg to differ. I think you run off everybody with insults and teaming up on people and that frustrates them and makes them want to leave. You are not going to win the hearts and minds with slander. All you are going to do is erect a forum where everybody has pretty much the same ideologies and when somebody new comes along the bashing will drive them away so you can claim they it was the facts that drove them out.

Let the bashing begin!!!

What facts do you have to support your points on 9/11. Present them.

Why are you waiting. Charlie Sheen is ready to debate all on the facts. A debate that will never happen because Charlie has no facts. What are your facts? You are a CTer because you have no facts to support your ideas. What do you have? We will never see your facts like we will never see Charlie's facts. Is this correct?

All you want to do is ague about all but the facts. What do you have on 9/11?

 

[beachnut]

AboveTopSecret.com embraces a critical look at conspiracy theory, while also embracing conspiracy theorists.

This board, "JREF", is largely responsible for the evolution of the acronym, "CTer", being a derogatory label.

In reality, there are lots of people that believe there are conspiracies...

There are lots of conspiracy theorists that believe almost any theory...

But there has always been serious conspiracy theorists who doubt "official" versions of anything, and naturally wonder what influences current events, and what has influenced history up until this point.

It's okay to be a conspiracy theorist... just not when you're posting at JREF.

Sure it is okay to lie and people will just say, there, there, but ...

No show up with some facts. Facts. If you are CT minded person on 9/11 you have no facts to support your ideas. Zero.

New name could be Zero Facters. The point is CT on 9/11 are disrespectful for tell lies without facts. Got some facts?

You can spot a CTer as soon as "official" comes out of their mouth, or the "pull it", or prisonPlanet,..

That could be a good thread. How do you know you are talking to a CTer? He supports people without facts. Are you a CTer?

 

[Horatius]

Thae fact that arguments exist for or against attributes of oddities in the JFK assassination does not automatically imply one conclusion over the other. If anything, it reinforces the notion that satisfactory conclusions have not yet been achieved.

I wasn't making an argument about what conclusions we should reach. I was addressing his assertions such as:

That is not true. I have never heard anyone say they don't believe in the lone gunman theory because "one person couldn't pull it off".

He's claiming that no one has ever argued against the Lone Gunman theory by saying "one person couldn't pull it off", which is simply ignorant, as there have been people who claim just that, as I'm sure you're aware. My point is, someone who is as unschooled in the discussions which have taken place should expect to have to do bit of work to educate themselves. And it would be nice if they didn't go around making sweeping statements that accuse others of making things up until they'e done that.

 

[beachnut]

Thae fact that arguments exist for or against attributes of oddities in the JFK assassination does not automatically imply one conclusion over the other. If anything, it reinforces the notion that satisfactory conclusions have not yet been achieved.

Following that thought, by extension, the issues that many have with the 9/11 report indicate that there is a lack of a satisfactory conclusion. And we need not traverse down the rabbit hole of "Alex Jones" and "9/11 Truth" to find those who are dissatisfied with the conclusions. Somewhere between the information of the report, and the most extreme dissatisfaction lies the truth... and that truth may likely involve conspiracies of some level. Such is the "mind space" of a serious conspiracy theorist... not "twooofers", not "CTers", not people ignoring logic... but conspiracy theorists who apply critical thought to provocative questions.

This is not even true. What is this a commercial for AboveTopSecret?

Alex Jones? What you say is not true at all.

Show us some of this critical thought on 9/11. Can you?

What are the questions and why are CT minded people unable to answer what others can?

Show us some of this critical thought on 9/11. Can you?

 

[beachnut]

Is Pomeroo an anagram for "More Poo"?

It certainly looks like it, from your posting

You are now just like Griffin, just talk, no facts.

Look at his books he even tells you he has no facts just what other people say.

 

[SkepticGuy]

Ah, beachnut, the trained JREF parrot.

This is not even true.

Because you say so? Show me your evidence that refutes my statement.

Show us some of this critical thought on 9/11. Can you?

Certainly, lots of it (sorry, some big threads, and sorry, they're from ATS)

9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon
Perhaps the single most popular 9/11 conspiracy thread. We've tracked over 1,200 unique domains linking to it. A great deal of good information from all sides of the issue.

WTC Challenge
Again, another excellent thread that challenges conspiracy theorists to think harder.

Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Theory' is a Conspiracy Fact
We've commented on the material in this thread for CNN, FoxNews, and a few news papers... and it was featured in an Anderson Cooper 360 segment about 9 months ago that gave a pretty positive spin to many of the conspiracy points within.

Let's End The Controlled Demolition Theory!
Another solid thread with many intellectually challenging posts.

Granted, there are many sophomoric, ill-conceived, and poorly researched contributions to these and any online discussion thread, but all contain valid points arrived through a critical analysis of available data by people who are "conspiracy theorists". (And many times, those points are at odds with 9/11 truth factoids.)

 

[Without Rights]

This quote is what makes you into a CT:er, in a derogatory way (if you have looked into the facts)

Because this leaves you to believe in the Bush adm really wacky CT theory about Ali baba Osama in the cave and the 19 Arab cokeheads. This is pretty wild.

You also have to belive in magic and that the natural laws were suspended on 911 when 3 WTC buildings exploded into dust.

PS: you should really be ashamed of yourself.

Actually I am undecided and still soaking info in. I have not ruled out the possibility of it being an inside job because there is no bases to do such a thing.

I like your response and it validates what I am trying to say. If I came to a conclusion based on zero input I would be a CT, if I find info and try to study and learn then come to the conclusion that it was an inside job then I am not a CT. When evidence is envolved that supports a theory a person can make a conclusion based on the evidence, therefore it would be more likely called a conspiracy conclusion. David Icke who thinks the elite are reptiles, that's a conspiracy theorist. He has a theory based on nothing. You however are not a CT because you have come to a conclusion based on analysis. Does that mean everybody has to agree, of course not.