My First Conspiracy Theory This "Terrorist Attack" is a set up

[LightinDarkness]

So far, the only arguments by the CTists in this thread (who then decided they would not be CTist once they were exposed for making no sense) are:

- It must be a conspiracy!
- I don't have any evidence, but its a conspiracy!
- OH MY GOD! You used the word WOO or CT, I am going to ignore everything else you say and act like you didn't debunk me!
- LALALALA I'm just not going to read anything that debunks me and hope no one sees that it happened.

Its probably one of the most amusing threads in JREF for a while. People flirting with CT and then get debunked almost immediately, and then they sit and spin for pages trying to act like they didn't believe in it at all The backpedaling has been pathetic to watch. Its even more amusing to watch all the wannabe CTers try to defend each other (well, its really only two of them).

Its going to be the new excuse for CTers "Oh, I didn't believe any of that anyways. Even though you just debunked me and I have no evidence whatsoever, I am now going to ignore that I've been debunked and claim I was just trolling."

My resolution for 2010 was to no longer deal with idiots. Two new ones added to the ignore list

 

[popscythe]

My resolution for 2010 was to no longer deal with idiots. Two new ones added to the ignore list

Sweet post man, 9/10.

 

[Travis]

There's a sex tape of Carrie Prejean and yet we're talking about this?


Granted I could say that in pretty much any thread in these forums and have a point.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

You haven't actually given us anything to debunk. "The CIA did it" is not a theory, it is a piece of baseless speculation.

It is no more plausible than saying it was Mossad or the frigging Mounties.

You have done nothing whatsoever to demonstate the plausibility of this silly CT. That is why no one is bothering to debunk it.

Until this guy has a trial and all of the evidence against him has been presented, neither you nor I nor anyone else outside of the investigation knows any of the details.

So you might as well say you think he was in cahoots with Mothra.

Which is why I pointed out, in my edit:

ETA: As it stands, at best we can only reach the stalemate of: "There is no evidence either way as to the validity of this conspiracy theory. I would like to believe it's not (or it is, depending on your stance), but we really just don't know" as a scenario has been presented and been met with no refutations that make it implausible.

I think it's important that this point is noted, by both sides. This is, IMO, the essence of skepticism and critical thinking. Not just debunking everything, but realizing what can and cannot be fairly waved away (if that makes sense?) based on the evidence provided.

 

[dudalb]

I want your best argument for saying that blancmange didn't try to blow up the plane landing in Detroit.

Prove it!!!1!

It was too busy changing Englishmen into Scotsmen at the time.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It was too busy changing Englishmen into Scotsmen at the time.

That couple at the train station could have saved us all a lot of time.

 

[Klimax]

I thought that title of this thread is obvious as well as intentions of author...

 

[Childlike Empress]

Here's an interview with one of the passengers.

Kurt Haskell, Detroit area attorney and passenger on the “Christmas bomber” flight 253, discusses the arrest of a second man that an FBI agent insinuated was carrying a bomb, the inconsistent statements from the FBI and US Customs – particularly from spokesman Ron Smith – and an account of the sharply dressed man of Indian appearance who helped suspected bomber Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab board the plane in the Netherlands.

MP3 here. (26:38)

Kurt Haskell is an attorney in the Detroit suburb of Taylor. He was a passenger on terrorist-attacked Northwest Airlines Flight 253 and has given numerous accounts of his experience to the media.

 

[funk de fino]

Here's an interview with one of the passengers.

More hearsay. I'm shocked!!

His no passport junk has been shown to be claptrap. Anyone who has flown to the US from Schipol knows his story is full of holes.

 

[carlitos]

Last time I flew from Schipol to the US, they interrogated me for about 30 minutes. Business Class, round-trip. No one is making that trip without a valid passport.

 

[funk de fino]

Last time I flew from Schipol to the US, they interrogated me for about 30 minutes. Business Class, round-trip. No one is making that trip without a valid passport.

Reality like that means nothing to the usual CT slurpers. There is not even a minimum of cross checking before the crap is repeated.

 

[Childlike Empress]

The airport's name is Schiphol, experts.

 

[carlitos]

Dank u well, genius. Have an Amstel on me.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Aye!

 

[funk de fino]

The airport's name is Schiphol, experts.

You have to get something right. Law of averages. Although it is only a spelling mistake, which makes you look even more foolish.

Do you take back your CT junk?

 

[truethat]

Welcome to JREF.


Why don't you believe in your CT?

I have a tendency to go along with Occam's Razor.

 

[truethat]

Its going to be the new excuse for CTers "Oh, I didn't believe any of that anyways. Even though you just debunked me and I have no evidence whatsoever, I am now going to ignore that I've been debunked and claim I was just trolling."

My resolution for 2010 was to no longer deal with idiots. Two new ones added to the ignore list

Thank you for doing us all a favor. What you consider "an argument" I consider insults and name calling bs. We will enjoy not having to deal with you again, rest assured.

 

[truethat]

Which is why I pointed out, in my edit:



I think it's important that this point is noted, by both sides. This is, IMO, the essence of skepticism and critical thinking. Not just debunking everything, but realizing what can and cannot be fairly waved away (if that makes sense?) based on the evidence provided.

This has been an interesting excercise for me because very often I would accuse a "skeptic" of using the same sort of tactics as a "believer" in order to make their point.

Mostly it's arguing from disbelief rather than actually taking the time to hear out the concept and to examine the information.

So this has taught me a great deal. I think some people like to wear a "skeptic" hat simply because they feel smarting doing so. Yet, as I have pointed out in the past and been similarly trounced, skepticim means thinking, not disbelief.

 

[JihadJane]

I have a tendency to go along with Occam's Razor.

What do you think about this tendency?

Have you, for example, been following the thread about
al Megrahi and the Lockerbie bombing?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85523&page=11

This has been an interesting excercise for me because very often I would accuse a "skeptic" of using the same sort of tactics as a "believer" in order to make their point.

Mostly it's arguing from disbelief rather than actually taking the time to hear out the concept and to examine the information.

So this has taught me a great deal. I think some people like to wear a "skeptic" hat simply because they feel smarting doing so. Yet, as I have pointed out in the past and been similarly trounced, skepticim means thinking, not disbelief.

Well put. Thanks for starting this thread.

Beyond the specific subject matter it's also worth remembering the nature of the medium (internet forum) which attracts and addicts with its promise of receiving perpetual unexpected reward (novelty) and the pleasures of neural habituation (e.g. feeling "smart", throwing rotten tomatoes etc).

 

[angrysoba]

Here's all round idiot and poison-monger Webster Tarpley!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faSIdHaaVPc&feature=player_embedded