What is a conspiracy theorist?

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Nobody here has ever suggested otherwise. Your point?

Can you name some?

 

[beachnut]

Ah, beachnut, the trained JREF parrot.

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

You go first. Who has not been to ats? What you said was wrong with no facts. I do not have to prove it wrong, I know it is wrong for me. It was kind of personal, so I can say you are wrong when you are wrong. It was such a gereneral statement it was wrong out of the box.

You were just talking and make up stuff as you went. I have nothing against ATS. I like ATS.

 

[beachnut]

Can you name some?

Nixon had a C. It was discovered and the guys got a PP in less than 2 years. WaterGate was a C. Usually you can skip the CT and just show the C. Nixon's conspiracy was to cove up the dirty tricks and the Watergate break-in which he knew about, etc.

For 9/11 there was a C by 19 people, and those people who supported them. It was solved quickly. The 19 terrorist conspired to bring terrorism to the US. They used simple means. They tricked us. That is the 9/11 Conspiracy.

There is another conspiracy by LC to commit fraud selling lies about 9/11 to CTers.

 

[LashL]

Can you name some?

How about you answer the question, which was, in case two words were too many for you to comprehend the first time around,

"Your point?"

 

[LashL]

I guess I'll have to look for your answer tomorrow, "skepticalcriticalguy" since one of us has to work in the morning - please do make it comprehensive and I will give it all of the attention that it deserves when I return.

 

[JimBenArm]

I guess I'll have to look for your answer tomorrow, "skepticalcriticalguy" since one of us has to work in the morning - please do make it comprehensive and I will give it all of the attention that it deserves when I return.

(bolding mine)
Come on. You have to at least read it!

 

[SkepticGuy]

I was not even talking to you about anything that that refers to. What are you talking about?

You asked for critical thought from conspiracy theorists in relation to 9/11 conspiracy theories, I responded by giving you four links, one of which is arguably the most popular 9/11 conspiracy thread anywhere. If you choose to ignore the material you ask for, that's your option in your exploration down the path of ignorance.

 

[Without Rights]

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.

Ok fine, Tom, Dick and Harry sitting on the sidelines may have said such things. But this is not the meat of the argument, and the experts that question JFK assasination don't say these things. I have heard similar arguments from both sides as well. Especially when talking about 911. Talks about what they think would never happen. But the NIST don't say these things, you see they are the experts so they don't use arguments like "couldn't, wouldn't, etc". If you rehash everything everybody has ever said then you can pretty much say anything and say "that is what these people say", but it is inacurate.

 

[Without Rights]

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

The NIST report pretty much validated the fact that the Commission report is flawed.

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

Well, I don't like the fact they don't review the events past the initial collapse. I don't know what happened after the initial collapse to make the building fall so quickly. I don't like the rhetoric with lack of mathimatical explainations. I wonder how molten metals were in the basement sublevels. Also the molten metal flowing from one of the towers, were did it come from? They say it was aluminum from the plane, but that explaination doesn't work, unless someone can show me yellow hot aluminum which I doubt.

Saying you're not impressed doesn't cut it...you must explain what you know that was missed by the commission and by NIST.

Ok I said some of the problems I have, let us see if I get attacked to validate the point of this thread.

 

[Without Rights]

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.

Well new people come here everyday. What would happen to the thread if all the questions that have been asked were never asked again?

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

I don't wish to be involved in any sort of sub-culture. I am who I am and I am not going to "learn" how to act, I am going to be me and if I am not excepted then I will move on.

 

[Without Rights]

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.

And what has brought you to this enlightened conclusion? And what warrants the ad hominem "real phony" upon me? If it is painfully obvious then you should have no problem expaining my beliefs to me.

Is this the most egotistical crapola I've read. Please tell me about myself oh enlightened one.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The NIST report pretty much validated the fact that the Commission report is flawed.

I'm aware of the assertion in a footnote of the 9-11 Commission Report that the core of the twin towers was a steel tube which only supported the elevator shafts, which is incorrect and is contrdicted by the NIST report. Since the 9-11 Commission was not composed of engineers and had no brief to investigate the engineering aspects of the towers' construction and collapse, the error is clearly trivial, and irrelevant to the subject of the 9-11 Commission's investigation. Are there any other contradictions between the NIST report and the Commission report you'd like to highlight so they can be addressed?

Well, I don't like the fact they don't review the events past the initial collapse. I don't know what happened after the initial collapse to make the building fall so quickly. I don't like the rhetoric with lack of mathimatical explainations. I wonder how molten metals were in the basement sublevels. Also the molten metal flowing from one of the towers, were did it come from? They say it was aluminum from the plane, but that explaination doesn't work, unless someone can show me yellow hot aluminum which I doubt.

There's a solid body of engineering opinion and analysis agreeing that, once the collapse had started, it was unstoppable. Much of this had already entered the public domain before the NIST enquiry. NIST's remit wasn't to investigate the mechanics of the collapse, but rather the mechanics of the collapse initiation, in order to review its implications on building construction standards. The main criticism of the NIST investigation from the truth movement seems to be that it doesn't address controlled demolition theories directly, but that wasn't its job. That job has been added to the NIST enquiry for WTC7, so let's wait and see what that turns up.

Molten metals in the basement sublevels were seen weeks after the collapse, so they can't have originated from events during the collapse unless they were perfectly insulated during the intervening time. Without any such insulation, which could have had no feasible origin, there must have been underground heat sources present in the rubble pile, as confirmed by NASA's satellite analysis. These were most probably underground fires, as no other plausible hypothesis has been suggested. Deliberate combustion of thermite over several weeks in the debris pile would be physically impossible (thermite burns too quickly) and would serve no purpose other than possibly to alert investigators to the presence of thermite.

As for the molten metal flowing from the towers, from its colour the one thing it cannot possibly be is molten iron or steel. It's clearly at yellow heat, whereas iron or steel doesn't melt until it's well into the region of radiating white. If it isn't molten iron or steel, it has no relevance to any thermite hypotheses. It would be interesting to find out exactly what it was for certain, but quite often it's impossible to be entirely certain what happened in the most innocent of circumstances.

Ok I said some of the problems I have, let us see if I get attacked to validate the point of this thread.

No personal attacks, just debating the evidence. I found out all this quite easily for myself on various helpful and informative websites. That's all (I hope) that most people here would request you do differently.

Dave

 

[Without Rights]

You know with comments like this, why do I get the feeling that there is a lot of racism involved with 9/11 CT's?

This is completely off base, I guess you missed the sarcasm in his statement. The people in the truth movement have been called terrorist sympathizers, now they are racsist as well. Kind of contradictory don't you think? Anyway, it is the people who say it was Arabs that condone the wars against Arabs, so that is where the racsism lies.

 

[Solus]

Just reading the forum names of these guys gives me a laugh.
If I could be administrator for a day, I'd give these posters more fitting names...

 

[Without Rights]

So true.


Here's the thing: we know the drill. Each CT comes in thinking he's special, and that he can fool us into believing he's "just asking questions" and that he can slowly dole out his dreck and convert the lot of us to CTs. Each is unwaveringly spotted immediately, of course, and they deny it, of course. Yet, virtually every time the debate progresses and we find out that, surprise surprise, they believe the jews/illuminatti/Bush/lizard people were behind 9/11.

So there is actually nobody in America that is on the fence. Everybody is either a conspiracy theorist or like you? Interesting observation to say the least. Borderline delusional paranoia that can only be matched by the people you are against.

Maybe this guy's the rare exception. One way to prove it: ask actual questions and accept the answers given, or give legitimate reasons why you don't accept them.

I don't have to prove myself to you. I am just going to be me and if you want to be so narrow as to think only two types of people or ideologies exist then that is your ignorance.

 

[Horatius]

Ok fine, Tom, Dick and Harry sitting on the sidelines may have said such things. But this is not the meat of the argument, and the experts that question JFK assasination don't say these things.

I'll admit I'm not up to speed on all the latest JFK stuff, but consider this:

Snipers: Former US Marine snipers, Craig Roberts, and Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock, (who was the senior instructor for the US Marine Corps Sniper Instructor School at Quantico, Virginia) both said it could not be done as described by the FBI investigators.
“Let me tell you what we did at Quantico,” Hathcock said. “We reconstructed the whole thing: the angle, the range, the moving target, the time limit, the obstacles, everything. I don’t know how many times we tried it, but we couldn’t duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did. Now if I can’t do it, how in the world could a guy who was a non-qual on the rifle range and later only qualified 'marksman' do it?”[32]

...

The Rifle: It is impossible for Oswald's rifle, the Mannlicher-Carcano,[35] to be fired more than once in less than 2.3 seconds.[36][37] According to some interpretations of the Zapruder film, Governor Connally appears to react to being shot 1.7 seconds after Kennedy, therefore they must have been hit by two separate shots fired in more rapid succession than would have been possible for Oswald's Cacarno. Top rifle experts of the FBI were incapable of making the rifle fire two shots in the 2.3-second timeframe.[38]

Quoted from here, if you'd like to see the footnotes. Doesn't look like some Tom Dick or Harry to me.

This argument is also common enough to warrant inclusion in the SkepticWiki article on JFK

It's also discussed here:

To suggest that more people were involved in the assassination, conspiracy theorists often note that although three shots were fired that day, and the shots that hit the President all occurred within 4.8 seconds, Oswald's rifle could fire only one shot every 2.3 seconds. That would make Oswald unlikely to be the only shooter—IF all three shots actually hit the President. However, Rahn and Sturdivan's analysis show that the first shot probably missed the President's car altogether. That leaves plenty of time for the two shots that did hit to be fired from Oswald's rifle.

And that's just from a casual Googling of the topic.

I don't think it's out of line to expect you to have done at least this much searching before going off and making your first comments about it. You certainly should have done it before trying to defend your position.

This is the biggest problem with CTists, and why you're looking more and more like one: a fundamental inability to admit even the possibility of mistake.

 

[Without Rights]

How? Give me facts, not opinion.

Show me an Intelligent CT and you will have falsified my Theory.

I would have to call you on this. You cannot doubt that intelligent people exist inside the truth movement. Just because you don't agree don't make them any less intelligent. Unless of course you think low intellect people can become prefessors or get a PhD. Intelligent people exist in all walks of life and on both sides of every issue.

 

[Horatius]

So there is actually nobody in America that is on the fence. Everybody is either a conspiracy theorist or like you? Interesting observation to say the least. Borderline delusional paranoia that can only be matched by the people you are against.

Or, you know, there's nobody coming to this forum who's actually on the fence.

False dichotomies are also a symptom of CTism, just so you know.

 

[Without Rights]

I call "victim mentality". Name, original post in this thread, and almost all subsequent posts are made with an aggressive "poor me" attitude. WR has backed him/herself into a corner before he/she's hardly started.

In WR's Hillary Clinton thread, it was quickly pointed out that WR had jumped to conclusions about Hillary's 'fake' accent. Instead of graciously admitting the mistake, WR has dug in his/her heels and become nasty.

I dug my heels in instead of admitting my mistake? The only response I posted were to people who also jumped to the same conclusion I did, but rationalized it away with "accents can manifest when you are around people who speak with an accent" When the context was posted I did not "did my heels in" I bowed out. You can try and chalk it up to gullibility if you want but I never liked HC in the first place and mainly thought it was funny. If I liked her and took the recording as fact and stopped liking her based on it, then I would be gullible.

Without Rights, it seems you are a believer in the Quantity Theory of Conspiracy. I.e. The more you read about not believing the "official version" (sic) the more you don't want to admit you've wasted your time.

Wasted my time doing what?

I can only hope that you spend more time reading and less time whining, and you may learn to evaluate claims based on their own merit, not on your preconceived notions of victimhood.

I can only hope that I find a group of people that understand why people question events and confront them in an adult manner. I really don't care what I am called by you people. I think you are missing the point. If this site is supposed to try and reach people and change the way they think then it is a miserable failure. That is my point.

I would of admitted my mistake in the Hillary thread if I knew people would be grown up about it. The truth is I heard the recording and :20 sec later I posted it on the site. The only people I confronted were people who heard it, accepted it, and rationalized her actions with hyperbole. I never questioned it again once I read the context.

 

[Without Rights]

I'm aware of the assertion in a footnote of the 9-11 Commission Report that the core of the twin towers was a steel tube which only supported the elevator shafts, which is incorrect and is contrdicted by the NIST report. Since the 9-11 Commission was not composed of engineers and had no brief to investigate the engineering aspects of the towers' construction and collapse, the error is clearly trivial, and irrelevant to the subject of the 9-11 Commission's investigation. Are there any other contradictions between the NIST report and the Commission report you'd like to highlight so they can be addressed?

I don't wish to argue dicrepencies between the two reports. The NIST has said that many conspiracy theorist make the mistake of bringing up the 911 commission report failures in their arguments. That alone suggests that the 911 commission is flawed.

There's a solid body of engineering opinion and analysis agreeing that, once the collapse had started, it was unstoppable. Much of this had already entered the public domain before the NIST enquiry. NIST's remit wasn't to investigate the mechanics of the collapse, but rather the mechanics of the collapse initiation, in order to review its implications on building construction standards. The main criticism of the NIST investigation from the truth movement seems to be that it doesn't address controlled demolition theories directly, but that wasn't its job. That job has been added to the NIST enquiry for WTC7, so let's wait and see what that turns up.

I would just like to see some math and science behind the belief that the collapse was unstopable, and explain why the lower floors offered little resistance to the fall. "An expert says", is not enough without coupling it with hard evidence and math/science equations to back up the rhetoric.

Molten metals in the basement sublevels were seen weeks after the collapse, so they can't have originated from events during the collapse unless they were perfectly insulated during the intervening time. Without any such insulation, which could have had no feasible origin, there must have been underground heat sources present in the rubble pile, as confirmed by NASA's satellite analysis. These were most probably underground fires, as no other plausible hypothesis has been suggested. Deliberate combustion of thermite over several weeks in the debris pile would be physically impossible (thermite burns too quickly) and would serve no purpose other than possibly to alert investigators to the presence of thermite.

Molten iron is a heat source. You say it can't be heat from a thermite reaction because there was insufficient insulation, but then say it had to be another heat source. Wouldn't that so-called "other" heat source be subject to the same problem, lack of insulation? And nobody is saying that there was continuous thermite reactions but it is plausible that molten iron created from a initial thermite reaction could produce cells of trapped molten metal insulated by piles of debris. What exactly does NASA photos showing heat prove. We know there was molten metal under the debris, so of course they are going to pick up heat.

As for the molten metal flowing from the towers, from its colour the one thing it cannot possibly be is molten iron or steel. It's clearly at yellow heat, whereas iron or steel doesn't melt until it's well into the region of radiating white. If it isn't molten iron or steel, it has no relevance to any thermite hypotheses. It would be interesting to find out exactly what it was for certain, but quite often it's impossible to be entirely certain what happened in the most innocent of circumstances.

A thermite reaction produces yellow hot molten iron. Unbiased and unrelated to the truthmovement are videos showing a thermite reaction producing molten metal that looks suspiciously like the molten material flowing from the tower. Yellow hot, with a distinct smoke rising from the reaction. The NIST says aluminum, I say reproduce this yellow hot aluminum in an experiment.

No personal attacks, just debating the evidence. I found out all this quite easily for myself on various helpful and informative websites. That's all (I hope) that most people here would request you do differently.

I have also read some things that attempt to confront these issues and I am not convinced. They don't clear things up without raising more questions.