• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What is a conspiracy theorist?

beachnut said:
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?
Click to expand...

What points are you talking about? I don't recall bringing up any points about 911. Are you attempting to put words in my mouth?
 
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.
Click to expand...
Isn't asking questions effort put forth to get them aswered. So you want this forum to be a bunch of people who think the same so you can kiss eachothers ass back and forth?

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.
Click to expand...

I never demanded answers, I expected them. I have read on why JFK was killed by one man, and it simply doesn't add up clearly enough to draw a conclusion. So What, should I keep reading article after article paper after paper until I do or could I just talk with people who don't believe it and ask them why they don't?
 
Last edited:
It's okay to be a conspiracy theorist... just not when you're posting at JREF. ;)
Click to expand...

Then that reduces this site to a mere social network of people who think the same. You might as well call it "My JREF".
 
beachnut said:
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?
Click to expand...

I have seen no facts here in support of the 911 Commission either, only people saying "why don't you read the Commission report."

Well I have read the 911 Commission report as well as the NIST report and I am not impressed.
 
Without Rights said:
Isn't asking questions effort put forth to get them aswered. So you want this forum to be a bunch of people who think the same so you can kiss eachothers ass back and forth?
Click to expand...


No, I'd like it to be a place that doesn't just re-hash the same old questions over and over again. So far, I've been disappointed.



Without Rights said:
I never demanded answers, I expected them. I have read on why JFK was killed by one man, and it simply doesn't add up clearly enough to draw a conclusion. So What, should I keep reading article after article paper after paper until I do or could I just talk with people who don't believe it and ask them why they don't?
Click to expand...



Then start a thread on that, and indicate clearly what you don't understand about a certain topic. I'm sure there are some here who can address the question intelligently. Just don't make it an overly-broad, "One guy couldn't do it!" sort of topic. Maybe, "How could one guy fire three shots so fast?" Just an example, of course, feel free to make up your own.

Of course, when you do that, be sure to have some ideas as to what evidence or arguments you'd accept, and which might convince you. Also, don't hold back a bunch of arguments in anticipation of playing "Gotcha!" with those who answer you, like so many CTs do when they first arrive. Reference the "Mark of Woo" that we've discussed lately to see what I mean.



Without Rights said:
Then that reduces this site to a mere social network of people who think the same. You might as well call it "My JREF".
Click to expand...



And again, read a bit, and learn the culture here. SkepticGuy isn't really on board with the JREF debunking squad, which is why he references the Above Top Secret board in several above posts. He's suggesting if you want to be a CT, or at least play one on the internet, and not always be called out on it, to go visit them there. He's basically shilling for ATS :)
 
Without Rights said:
I have seen no facts here in support of the 911 Commission either, only people saying "why don't you read the Commission report."

Well I have read the 911 Commission report as well as the NIST report and I am not impressed.
Click to expand...

What are the exact problems you have with the 911 Commision Report? What did they miss? Point out where their findings failed.

What are the exact problems you have with the NIST report? What did they miss? Please point out where their findings failed.

Saying you're not impressed doesn't cut it...you must explain what you know that was missed by the commission and by NIST.
 
Without Rights said:
I have seen no facts here in support of the 911 Commission either, only people saying "why don't you read the Commission report."

Well I have read the 911 Commission report as well as the NIST report and I am not impressed.
Click to expand...

Impressive. Alot of reading, to read the entire NIST series of reports. I have not read it all. I have read much of it, and it took me weeks of reading my screen 4-5 hours at a time.

The Commission report I have a soft cover copy of, and have read it twice.

Please state where each report is wrong and why, or at least pull out a few areas in each that are false.

TAM:)
 
Would that "First post" actually be your fourth post?
Click to expand...
Fine, I meant the first discussion I got in, Mr. Technical. I don't think that matters in the least bit.


And you weren't called a CT for disagreeing with the tax, it was for calling Al Gore an idiot, which is pretty much gauranteed to get a response from certain people with the initials PL.
Click to expand...
And everybody followed his lead.

And his asking you if you were a CT did come after this gem:
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Without Rights
I don't really know anything about this Alex guy (guess I'll do a search if I want to converse on this site) but "that they intend to kill 80% of us", while that statement does twist it, there has been a quite bit of discussion by scientists on the issue and alot of them believe that our intelligence is negating evolution and survival of the fittest, and that we should seek programs to reimplement the phenoms in a controlled manner.

On another note, it is certainly not odd to fear RFID, I can't say the government openly plans on using it to implant chips into people but the technology is here, and nobody loves technology like the government.
Click to expand...


Which, while not being out-right raving loony CT does indicate a certain bias in that direction.
Click to expand...

A bias, because I don't like RFID. It creeps me out completely. How is this biased and how does it imply conspiracy? And the 90% reduced population has been discussed by scientist, If I say something has been discussed that has been discussed I am just pointing out a simple truth.

So I'd say part of your feeling put-upon is caused by you not realizing exactly how you sound to others. You thought you were being perfectly normal, but you weren't.
Click to expand...
No, I would say the people here have a tendency to look for things that are even remotely in agreement with any aspect of CT's so they can bring out the whippin sticks. Many people are uneasy about RFID, they are not all conspiracy theorists.
 
SkepticGuy said:
BINGO!
Thanks for playing... Johnny, tell him what he's won.

At what point did you ever think it was any different?
Click to expand...

Only when I was told to come here by a friend. When I got here I quickly learned of the incedible amount of bias and ridicule.
 
Without Rights said:
Only when I was told to come here by a friend. When I got here I quickly learned of the incedible amount of bias and ridicule.
Click to expand...

Again I ask...

What are the exact problems you have with the 911 Commision Report? What did they miss? Point out where their findings failed.

What are the exact problems you have with the NIST report? What did they miss? Please point out where their findings failed.

Saying you're not impressed doesn't cut it...you must explain what you know that was missed by the commission and by NIST.
 
I guess some of the bias and ridicule comes from how most regulars feel about the accusation that is implied by those falling on the "9/11 truth" side of the argument. I mean I think it is annoying, and displeasing to most people here to debate over whether or not their govt and hundreds of honest good americans were complacent in a cover up of the murder of 3000 people. It is an abhorant suggestion.

I have to say I find it difficult to bite my tongue when people come to this site making such accusations, even if indirectly, without any proof or evidence to back it up.

TAM
 
Without Rights said:
A bias, because I don't like RFID. It creeps me out completely. How is this biased and how does it imply conspiracy? And the 90% reduced population has been discussed by scientist, If I say something has been discussed that has been discussed I am just pointing out a simple truth.

No, I would say the people here have a tendency to look for things that are even remotely in agreement with any aspect of CT's so they can bring out the whippin sticks. Many people are uneasy about RFID, they are not all conspiracy theorists.
Click to expand...



I'll refer you back to my earlier post:


Horatius said:
Not any one of those things. All those together, and the dedication with which you believe them (in the face of evidence to the contrary), may be what makes you a CT.
Click to expand...



How many "CT type topics" can one person address before we are allowed to assume they are a CT? And does the number change based on how soon after they start posting before they start getting into the CT topics?

Again, can you not see how this collection of beliefs, even if they aren't expressed very strongly, could lead us to think you might be a full-on CT, or are at least leaning that way? Particularly in light of the fact that other CT have followed exactly the same path, in what can only be a deliberate manner.
 
skepticalcriticalguy said:
Clever.

What dots do you connect? Or do you just let Fox News do it for you?
Click to expand...

You have no facts to connect any dots to. Zero facts on 9/11, just opinioins and they you think you have come up with something. But you lack facts. As the thread starter has done, come to play 9/11 CT with no facts. It quickly shows as all the CT minded come with talk and opinions and no facts to support either.

How can you connect dots, you have no facts to help you make conclusions? You quickly make up opinions and try to apply them to the real world. That usually does not work. What should you call CT with no facts on 9/11?

Here you go saying you have connected the dots, like Charlie Sheen, and come up with what? How can you just make up stuff and say you have connected the dots? Were are the facts, logic, knowledge, and experience? Why do people with CT minds avoid the facts?
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
Zero facts on 9/11, just opinioins and they you think you have come up with something. But you lack facts.
Click to expand...

Did you happen to read any of those threads I provided when you where looking for a critical analysis from a conspiracy perspective?

Maybe if you spent less time playing "no facts" parrot and more time reading, you'd understand both sides of the issue (which is always the intelligent thing to do).
 
Re: SkepticGuy

Maybe if the conspiracy theorists offered facts, it'd be worth considering? (Seriously, if you walk up to me and give me an argument that has truth by implication, but contradicts with known facts.. I'm not looking at it from yourside without a reason, i.e, facts)

In anycase, in response to the OP: I'll add my voice in response to the others : A lot of people here debate the same thing again and again - it's why if you want a particular question answered, it's always best to use the search function, then ask if you can't find it answered in another thread.
 
[=Without Rights;2409246]I have seen no facts here in support of the 911 Commission either, only people saying "why don't you read the Commission report."

Well I have read the 911 Commission report as well as the NIST report and I am not impressed.
Click to expand...

I don't believe you. That you haven't read either is painfully obvious.

Conspiracy liars fall into two categories: the True Believers with kaleidoscope eyes who make no bones about being as crazy as sh**house rats, and the thoughtful, sensitive seekers of truth, i.e., the real phonies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom