• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories

Any Conspiracy-Busters here?

Not sure how I missed this thread before. Funny, a couple of days ago someone emailed me with the link to "9/11 Eyewitness" and told me to listen for the "huge explosion" 10 seconds before the south tower collapses. My reply was,

1) How is it that you can clearly hear this "huge explosion" 3 miles away, but it is not recorded by audio, video or seismic devices that were right next to where the "explosion" happened?

2) What sort of controlled demolition would involve a "huge explosion" 10 seconds before collapse?

I did not receive a reply.
 
thesyntaxera said:
Wildcat...listen...recording/editing audio is my business...your preaching to the choir...and your wrong...there is no way wind can just appear and make a loud thud in rhythmic sequences that sounds like an echoing explosion...there is a huge difference....

Why do you keep persuing this innane line of logic as if it makes any sense? Instead you are making unreasonable excuses based on your uneducated experiences with audio recording....
Click to expand...

I apologize if this has been covered, since I haven't yet made it all the way through this thread, but I just had to jump in here.

I don't know the first thing about audio recording, but I do know quite a bit about the scientific method. The above claim is falsifiable. All it takes is for one person to post one video...showing anything at all...in which wind makes explosive-like noises. Does anyone out there have such a thing?
 
thesyntaxera

NobbyNobbs said:
I apologize if this has been covered, since I haven't yet made it all the way through this thread, but I just had to jump in here.

I don't know the first thing about audio recording, but I do know quite a bit about the scientific method. The above claim is falsifiable. All it takes is for one person to post one video...showing anything at all...in which wind makes explosive-like noises. Does anyone out there have such a thing?
Click to expand...

Speaking of threads that don't die...

Has anyone replicated explosive wind noise yet?
 
Gravy said:
Not sure how I missed this thread before. Funny, a couple of days ago someone emailed me with the link to "9/11 Eyewitness" and told me to listen for the "huge explosion" 10 seconds before the south tower collapses. My reply was,

1) How is it that you can clearly hear this "huge explosion" 3 miles away, but it is not recorded by audio, video or seismic devices that were right next to where the "explosion" happened?

2) What sort of controlled demolition would involve a "huge explosion" 10 seconds before collapse?

I did not receive a reply.
Click to expand...

I suppose you didn't bother to watch it then did you? Or were you just intimidated by the "child prodigy"?
 
thesyntaxera said:
Speaking of threads that don't die...

Has anyone replicated explosive wind noise yet?
Click to expand...
You're back. How special. I guess this means you're not getting enough attention spray painting profanity on the side of your highschool.

I have a better question. Do you have any proof yet? All you have so far is popping sounds on a microphone. If your hypothesis were correct, there should be abundant evidence.
 
delphi_ote said:
You're back. How special. I guess this means you're not getting enough attention spray painting profanity on the side of your highschool.

I have a better question. Do you have any proof yet? All you have so far is popping sounds on a microphone. If your hypothesis were correct, there should be abundant evidence.
Click to expand...


Sheesh...

Listen. If there was enough evidence to disprove conspiracy in the first place, which you seem to think there is, then I would have no problem buying an official version. However, there is not. Didn't the FBI just come out and say that they have no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to the 9/11 attacks?
http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html

My only position has been that a fairly poor investigation was conducted offering meager explanations to truly astonishing events, and that in light of this crappy excuse for an inquiry there has been a flurry of speculation as to what actually happened. This only occurs in situations where the evidence is inadequate to begin with....so your assertion that all that we need to know is known is ridiculous in my view...we know nothing of any substance.

What we do have on the other hand is a load of circumstantial evidence that points to various links between the major parties involved and a loose motive to go to war for future energy resources and regional influence using this event as the catalyst for all of the events that followed....do you really think in all of this it is logically unreasonable to think that some type of "conspiracy" took place?

All conspiracy really means is people working together for a common goal. As Noam Chomsky points out, if we were to believe in the idea of conspiracy then there would be conspiracy every where. It's a matter of subjective opinion.

Take the fabulously crazy David Icke...if you were to remove all the illuminati bull out of his "pyramidal power structures" you would have a fairly accurate depiction of the way things are laid out from the top down. The same applies to Alex Jones...both of these guys take the same information and look at it a completely different way..perhaps out of paranoia or delusions of grandeur...no one can prove them wrong comepletely, and so they remain correct in the eyes of the people who listen to them and most of all to themselves.

Just because 1,000 Jref forum members have all concluded that 911 wasn't a conspiracy in anyway shape or form in a dozen different threads doesn't mean your conclusions are valid or true anymore than a "CT'ers". You are all using the same information to champion a favorite theory while failing to realize that the reason you are having to make "educated" assumptions if because there is a disturbing lack of evidence one way or the other.

As far as I'm concerned the only difference between the fantatical anti-conspiracy camp and the fanatical pro-conspiracy camp is your postion...your both egregiously insane.


and no, thats not wind noise..this was demonstrated in the supplied video... As well the video someone else provided to demonstrate that it was wind noise only furthers my contention that it was not. Why not try watching it yourself.
 
thesyntaxera said:
It's a matter of subjective opinion.
Click to expand...
Then why argue about it? Why are you typing into your keyboard? Why did you come back hereto post months after this thread had died? Why do you keep breathing, for that matter? After all, it's all a matter of subjective opinion whether your body requires oxygen or not.

That's a pretty trite philosophy you've got there. Grab your dictionary and look up "solipsism" and "truth relativism." If those are the positions you're going to pretend to take, arguing with your is obviously pointless. You're going to pretend like nothing matters at all, but every time you put your fingers to your keyboard, you're proving your pretend philosophy wrong.

You obviously don't believe what you're typing up there. You're just a hypocrite trying to come off as "rising above" the argument. You claim it doesn't matter one way or the other, but you're still arguing about the "explosion" on the microphone. You clearly believe one side of the argument is true and the other is false, so much so that you return after months and months to bring it back up again.
 
thesyntaxera said:
What we do have on the other hand is a load of circumstantial evidence that points to various links between the major parties involved and a loose motive to go to war for future energy resources and regional influence using this event as the catalyst for all of the events that followed....do you really think in all of this it is logically unreasonable to think that some type of "conspiracy" took place?
Click to expand...
Not at all. There were at least 19 Islamic terrorists involved, plus their funders, advisors, etc. That's a pretty good conspiracy and they did a great job of keeping the attacks a secret.

As for elements of the US government being involved, please supply your evidence. Name one person you have hard evidence on. Remember, even bin Laden gets the benefit of hard, as opposed to circumstantial, evidence.

If you were accused of a serious crime that you did not commit, would you want your standards of evidence to be admissible against you at trial?

I thought not.
 
delphi_ote said:
Then why argue about it? Why are you typing into your keyboard? Why did you come back hereto post months after this thread had died? Why do you keep breathing, for that matter? After all, it's all a matter of subjective opinion whether your body requires oxygen or not.

That's a pretty trite philosophy you've got there. Grab your dictionary and look up "solipsism" and "truth relativism." If those are the positions you're going to pretend to take, arguing with your is obviously pointless. You're going to pretend like nothing matters at all, but every time you put your fingers to your keyboard, you're proving your pretend philosophy wrong.

You obviously don't believe what you're typing up there. You're just a hypocrite trying to come off as "rising above" the argument. You claim it doesn't matter one way or the other, but you're still arguing about the "explosion" on the microphone. You clearly believe one side of the argument is true and the other is false, so much so that you return after months and months to bring it back up again.
Click to expand...

Your right delphi, obviously I don't believe what I am writing. Your skepticism pays off again. Or, I could believe everything I am writing..I guess its a matter of opinion like I was saying.

Trite philosophy or not, thats the way the world is for the most part at least when it comes to how people percieve things. Absolute "truths" are for born again christians and...you apparently?

Feel free to keep evangelizing!
 
thesyntaxera said:
Your right delphi, obviously I don't believe what I am writing. Your skepticism pays off again. Or, I could believe everything I am writing..I guess its a matter of opinion like I was saying.

Trite philosophy or not, thats the way the world is for the most part at least when it comes to how people percieve things. Absolute "truths" are for born again christians and...you apparently?

Feel free to keep evangelizing!
Click to expand...

You appear to not be familiar with how science operates, allow me to assist
Michael Shermer on "The Scientific Method"*

Elements of the scientific method ( hypothetico-deductive):

Induction -- Forming a hypothesis by drawing general conclusions from existing data.

Deduction -- Making specific predictions based on the hypothesis.

Observation -- Gathering data, driven by hypothesis that tell us what to look for in nature.

Verification -- Testing the predictions against further observations to confirm or falsify the initial hypothesis.

Through the scientific method, we may form the following generalizations:

Hypothesis -- A testable statement accounting for a set of observations.

Theory -- A well-supported and well-tested hypothesis or set of hypotheses.

Fact -- A conclusion confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer provisional agreement.

Through the scientific method, we aim for objectivity: basing conclusions on external validation. And we avoid mysticism: basing conclusions on personal insights that elude external validation.

Science leads us toward rationalism: basing conclusions on logic and evidence. And science helps us avoid dogmatism: basing conclusions on authority rather than logic and evidence.

It is important to recognize the fallibility of science and the scientific method. But within this fallibility lies its greatest strength: self-correction.

A scientific law is a description of a regularly repeating action that is open to rejection or confirmation.

Scientific progress is the cummulative growth of a system of knowledge over time, in which useful features are retained, and nonuseful features are abandoned, based on the rejection or confirmation of testable knowledge.

Pseudoscience: claims presented so that they appear scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility.


Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to test natural explanations for natural phenomenon. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions.

A skeptic is one who questions the validity of a particular claim by calling for evidence to prove or disprove it.
Click to expand...
http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/talks/LiU/sci_method_2.html
 
thesyntaxera said:
Your right delphi, obviously I don't believe what I am writing. Your skepticism pays off again. Or, I could believe everything I am writing..I guess its a matter of opinion like I was saying.

Trite philosophy or not, thats the way the world is for the most part at least when it comes to how people percieve things. Absolute "truths" are for born again christians and...you apparently?

Feel free to keep evangelizing!
Click to expand...
You don't think gravity is a truth? What about the speed of light in a vacuum? The Doppler effect? The conservation of energy? Entropy? DNA? Mendelian inheritance? The Pythagorean Theorem? Newton's Third Law? The Leidenfrost effect?

Our species has spent a lot of time and effort unraveling these mysteries. If you choose to ignore them, fine. But if I steal your wallet, I don't want to hear you complain about it. It's existence is just a matter of opinion, right?

I repeat. You don't really believe what you're typing. If you did, you wouldn't bother typing it. The reality of your keyboard, mouse, monitor, and internet connection are all a matter of unverifiable opinion. Go ahead and respond to this. Give us all more evidence that you don't actually believe your own purported crap philosophy.
 
thesyntaxera said:
Sheesh...

Listen. If there was enough evidence to disprove conspiracy in the first place, which you seem to think there is, then I would have no problem buying an official version. However, there is not. Didn't the FBI just come out and say that they have no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to the 9/11 attacks?
Click to expand...

HUH! Guess that completely demolishes the official version of the .... wait a minute! No! It DOESN'T.

My only position has been that a fairly poor investigation was conducted offering meager explanations to truly astonishing events,
Click to expand...

I find nothing astonishing about airliners rammed at full speed into steel-framed buildings, causing said buildings to collapse. Perhaps you're easily impressed.

and that in light of this crappy excuse for an inquiry there has been a flurry of speculation as to what actually happened.
Click to expand...

Only from less-educated people.

This only occurs in situations where the evidence is inadequate to begin with....
Click to expand...

Only to less-educated people.

What we do have on the other hand is a load of circumstantial evidence that points to various links between the major parties involved and a loose motive to go to war for future energy resources and regional influence using this event as the catalyst for all of the events that followed....do you really think in all of this it is logically unreasonable to think that some type of "conspiracy" took place?
Click to expand...

Yes. Circumstancial evidence and motive aren't as strong as physical evidence, which we have plenty of.

Just because 1,000 Jref forum members have all concluded that 911 wasn't a conspiracy in anyway shape or form in a dozen different threads doesn't mean your conclusions are valid or true anymore than a "CT'ers".
Click to expand...

The first true statement I've read from you in a long time.

You are all using the same information to champion a favorite theory while failing to realize that the reason you are having to make "educated" assumptions if because there is a disturbing lack of evidence one way or the other.
Click to expand...

Disturbing lack of evidence ? Litterally tens of thousands of pieces of evidence, recordings, data, etc. And you call that a LACK of evidence ?

and no, thats not wind noise...
Click to expand...

Uh-huh. If that's so, why didn't anybody actually hear that, then ?
 
thesyntaxera said:
Your right delphi, obviously I don't believe what I am writing. Your skepticism pays off again. Or, I could believe everything I am writing..I guess its a matter of opinion like I was saying.
Click to expand...

The fact that you believe what you write or not is NOT a matter of opinion. It's a matter of FACT.
 
delphi_ote said:
You don't think gravity is a truth? What about the speed of light in a vacuum? The Doppler effect? The conservation of energy? Entropy? DNA? Mendelian inheritance? The Pythagorean Theorem? Newton's Third Law? The Leidenfrost effect?

Our species has spent a lot of time and effort unraveling these mysteries. If you choose to ignore them, fine. But if I steal your wallet, I don't want to hear you complain about it. It's existence is just a matter of opinion, right?

I repeat. You don't really believe what you're typing. If you did, you wouldn't bother typing it. The reality of your keyboard, mouse, monitor, and internet connection are all a matter of unverifiable opinion. Go ahead and respond to this. Give us all more evidence that you don't actually believe your own purported crap philosophy.
Click to expand...



Well...I certainly didn't imply anything that you are listing above. That much is certain. What I was saying is that your opinion on this matter is based on your limited perspective...ie your perception.

I wasn't trying to get into the whole "brain in a vat" problem, as interesting as that is. What I am trying to address is the apparent infallability of the skeptical dogma that your are preaching...as if it isn't just another point of view.

In this case, the evidence is too loose, and the verification too thin to fully convert a "Ct'er" to your side of the argument. Even if your remove all claims about the planes and buildings and highjackers, you still have a fairly unsubtantiated conspiracy theory left over in the form of the official story.
There is still the whole matter of foreknowledge and a failure to act, as well as the environmental impact that was suppressed until recently.

Some people might think that a foreknowledge and what could or couldn't be an intentional failure to act might be enough to call it conspiracy....but that is neither here nor there.

So what is the aim in debunking this, or any other opinion that doesn't fall in line with the Jref forum member approved version of reality?

Don't you think there is a bit a facism involved when you try to convert a mass of people over to your way of thinking even if your ARE more correct than the person you seek to convert? It's not like human idea's are in danger of being overtaken by the deranged concepts that you are waging jihad against...

I repeat, I do believe what I am typing, unless you can provide some empirical data to suggest otherwise, and thus convert my pov of my pov...
 
thesyntaxera said:
Maybe not. However, science is conducted by people with personal points of view and their limited perceptions. Like you already know, people can look at the same data and draw completely different conclusions.
Click to expand...
Science is not a post-modern exercise. The philosophy you're espousing flies in the face of hundreds of years of contributions made by this enterprise that have added vastly more to the base of human knowledge than any other method of pursuit.
 
thesyntaxera said:
Maybe not. However, science is conducted by people with personal points of view and their limited perceptions. Like you already know, people can look at the same data and draw completely different conclusions.
Click to expand...

I get the feeling you, at most, glanced at my link.
Through the scientific method, we aim for objectivity: basing conclusions on external validation. And we avoid mysticism: basing conclusions on personal insights that elude external validation.

Science leads us toward rationalism: basing conclusions on logic and evidence. And science helps us avoid dogmatism: basing conclusions on authority rather than logic and evidence.

It is important to recognize the fallibility of science and the scientific method. But within this fallibility lies its greatest strength: self-correction.

A scientific law is a description of a regularly repeating action that is open to rejection or confirmation.

Scientific progress is the cummulative growth of a system of knowledge over time, in which useful features are retained, and nonuseful features are abandoned, based on the rejection or confirmation of testable knowledge.
Click to expand...
 
thesyntaxera said:
Well...I certainly didn't imply anything that you are listing above. That much is certain. What I was saying is that your opinion on this matter is based on your limited perspective...ie your perception.
Click to expand...
All of those things I listed were discovered by humans with limited perception and their own point of view. Do you believe they're correct? If so, why?
thesyntaxera said:
Don't you think there is a bit a facism involved when you try to convert a mass of people over to your way of thinking even if your ARE more correct than the person you seek to convert?
Click to expand...
But isn't that what you're doing now? It's amazing how your philosophies always break down as soon as we examine your very own behavior. That suggests to me that you don't think very much or very well.
thesyntaxera said:
I repeat, I do believe what I am typing, unless you can provide some empirical data to suggest otherwise, and thus convert my pov of my pov...
Click to expand...
I already have. If you actually believe everything is just a matter of perception and that it is fascist to try to change someone's point of view, you wouldn't be posting here trying to convince me that your view is correct. Your own posts are empirical data of your hypocracy.
 
chipmunk stew said:
Science is not a post-modern exercise. The philosophy you're espousing flies in the face of hundreds of years of contributions made by this enterprise that have added vastly more to the base of human knowledge than any other method of pursuit.
Click to expand...

So scientists aren't people with personal points of view who are limited by their perception? Post Modernism has little to do with any of this...as I said I am trying to steer clear of all that murk...regardless of your views on that vein of philosophy humans are still limited to their senses and previous data.

A simplified way of saying this...Science is the data and the process used to collect it...what we make of it is up to our brains to interpret, which ultimately falls on our perception, preconceived notions, and previous experiences...etc...
 
All of those things I listed were discovered by humans with limited perception and their own point of view. Do you believe they're correct? If so, why?
Click to expand...

They are good idea's with data to back them up...how does that equal an absolute belief?

But isn't that what you're doing now? It's amazing how your philosophies always break down as soon as we examine your very own behavior. That suggests to me that you don't think very much or very well.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything...nothing could be more clear. I have challenged the arguments and methods that you are using to debunk this particular conspiracy claim...and as I have stated, this case is not unlike a lot of cases where pov is based on who is looking at the data.

I already have. If you actually believe everything is just a matter of perception and that it is fascist to try to change someone's point of view, you wouldn't be posting here trying to convince me that your view is correct. Your own posts are empirical data of your hypocracy.
Click to expand...

Like I said before, if I were trying to convince you of something I would be claiming something else as the truth. All I am trying to get you to do is admit that there are certain fallacies in pure skepticism when it comes to things like this...and especially with the sort found in these forums. It's like a bunch of dejected teenagers banding together to give themselves self worth by aggrandizing how clear their view of reality is.
 
thesyntaxera said:
They are good idea's with data to back them up...how does that equal an absolute belief?
Click to expand...
Do you believe they are true or do you not believe they are true?
thesyntaxera said:
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything...nothing could be more clear. I have challenged the arguments and methods that you are using to debunk this particular conspiracy claim...and as I have stated, this case is not unlike a lot of cases where pov is based on who is looking at the data.
Click to expand...
Nothing could be more clear? Everything you typed there is trying to convince me of something.
thesyntaxera said:
Like I said before, if I were trying to convince you of something I would be claiming something else as the truth. All I am trying to get you to do is admit that there are certain fallacies in pure skepticism when it comes to things like this...and especially with the sort found in these forums. It's like a bunch of dejected teenagers banding together to give themselves self worth by aggrandizing how clear their view of reality is.
Click to expand...
You are trying to convince me that you are not trying to convince me of something. Do you realize how silly that is in the context of this discussion?
thesyntaxera said:
Don't you think there is a bit a facism involved when you try to convert a mass of people over to your way of thinking even if your ARE more correct than the person you seek to convert?
Click to expand...
I guess you're a bit of a facist.
 
thesyntaxera said:
So scientists aren't people with personal points of view who are limited by their perception? Post Modernism has little to do with any of this...as I said I am trying to steer clear of all that murk...regardless of your views on that vein of philosophy humans are still limited to their senses and previous data.

A simplified way of saying this...Science is the data and the process used to collect it...what we make of it is up to our brains to interpret, which ultimately falls on our perception, preconceived notions, and previous experiences...etc...
Click to expand...
What you're missing is that science isn't just collecting data. It's a process to interpret the data, too. When done right, it limits the influence of our subjective biases. The process is designed such that investigations can be replicated by those who don't share the same biases. Because of this, science has a self-correcting attribute such that over time the knowledge built using this method tends ever closer towards a true representation of reality.

As a practical example, we can collect data about a set of correlated events, and our subjective biases may make us inclined to attribute a causal relationship between them. To remove this bias, we set up a double-blind experiment that tests for cause and effect. The results of the experiment hopefully shows us that a) the causal relationship exists or b) it does not. If we've documented our experiment properly, then it can be replicated, or flaws can be discovered in our methodology. If our methodology is good, our experiment is replicated independently, and the results are similar, we have good evidence that our results are sound. The more the experiment is replicated with similar results, the stronger our evidence becomes.
 
chipmunk stew said:
What you're missing is that science isn't just collecting data. It's a process to interpret the data, too. When done right, it limits the influence of our subjective biases. The process is designed such that investigations can be replicated by those who don't share the same biases. Because of this, science has a self-correcting attribute such that over time the knowledge built using this method tends ever closer towards a true representation of reality.

As a practical example, we can collect data about a set of correlated events, and our subjective biases may make us inclined to attribute a causal relationship between them. To remove this bias, we set up a double-blind experiment that tests for cause and effect. The results of the experiment hopefully shows us that a) the causal relationship exists or b) it does not. If we've documented our experiment properly, then it can be replicated, or flaws can be discovered in our methodology. If our methodology is good, our experiment is replicated independently, and the results are similar, we have good evidence that our results are sound. The more the experiment is replicated with similar results, the stronger our evidence becomes.
Click to expand...


I agree completely with what you are saying. I am just failing to see how that was done in the case of the Official 9/11 investigation. Skeptics explaining this away is just the same as a CT'ist explaining it away. Both are using the same evidence with the same holes and filling those holes with whatever they chose.

This article more succintly describes what I am getting at:
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0427-29.htm
 
delphi_ote said:
Do you believe they are true or do you not believe they are true?

Nothing could be more clear? Everything you typed there is trying to convince me of something.

You are trying to convince me that you are not trying to convince me of something. Do you realize how silly that is in the context of this discussion?

I guess you're a bit of a facist.
Click to expand...

Apparently cleverness is not a requisite? I sort of figured that ninja aren't known for their ability to lighten up.
 
thesyntaxera said:
I agree completely with what you are saying. I am just failing to see how that was done in the case of the Official 9/11 investigation. Skeptics explaining this away is just the same as a CT'ist explaining it away. Both are using the same evidence with the same holes and filling those holes with whatever they chose.

This article more succintly describes what I am getting at:
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0427-29.htm
Click to expand...
You don't seriously believe that the official investigations and the truth movement investigations approach the evidence with equivalent methods, do you? The author of this article doesn't.

Let's take the explosions heard at WTC:
The CT improperly concludes that this points to explosives and seeks further evidence to support this conclusion.
The professional investigator properly considers explosives as one of many possibilities, checks the evidence to see if there's a hint of what one should expect from explosives--explosive residue, recovered detonators, witness accounts of unusual activity, an unusually large purchase of explosives, video/images/eyewitness accounts consistent with intentional detonations, etc.--and if the corroborating evidence is not strong, he rejects the possibility in favor of more mundane possibilities.

There's simply no conclusive evidence proving what these explosions were, and there probably never will be. They will forever be a hole in the story, open to some degree of speculation. But explosives is probably the worst, most weakly supported possibility. Explosions are common in large fires and were not unexpected or surprising to people who deal with large fires.

If the author has looked further into the holes he lists since April, he hopefully has discovered that many of the issues raised have been addressed squarely and adequately (not "explained away") and that others turn out to be irrelevant since they don't undercut the OV in any meaningful way. (In the case of WTC7, the "smoking gun" of the CT's, there's not even a finalized OV to criticize yet!)
 
thesyntaxera said:
So scientists aren't people with personal points of view who are limited by their perception?
Click to expand...

Of course they are. But the number of different scientists on the same subject makes it less likely that a mistake will go unnoticed. It increased objectivity. That's the whole point of peer review.
 
thesyntaxera said:
Apparently cleverness is not a requisite? I sort of figured that ninja aren't known for their ability to lighten up.
Click to expand...
Oh, I'm being light hearted. These philosophies aren't something I take very seriously at all. Sorry if I gave you the impression I was upset.
 
The thread that started it all! Now that the 9/11 Truth Movement is nothing but an insignificant ghost of its former self, I thought it’d be a great service to all our fellow debunkers to dig up the first thread here to see how all our debunking careers began.

I have two questions to the veterans who’ve been doing this since the beginning. 1. Why did it take until 2005/2006 for 9/11 Conspiracy Theories to start spreading rapidly on the internet, instead of let’s say... right after 9/11. 2. Why did it only take until about three years ago for 9/11 theories to almost completely die off. Most of us assumed they’d fade away after Loose Change stopped being popular in 2006. Nope they kept spreading online. We thought Bush leaving office would be their demise. Nope, they kept spreading in 2009 and the years that followed. We hoped the death of OBL in 2011 and the 10th anniversary of 9/11 would cause the theories to fade away. Nope, they were still popular online. The 15th anniversary? Still around. Yet the years 2017/2018 showed a rapid decline in support for the theories, as evidenced even here in this sub-forum, where 9/11 CT threads declined to only once a month or less.
 
MrFliop said:
The thread that started it all! Now that the 9/11 Truth Movement is nothing but an insignificant ghost of its former self, I thought it’d be a great service to all our fellow debunkers to dig up the first thread here to see how all our debunking careers began.

I have two questions to the veterans who’ve been doing this since the beginning. 1. Why did it take until 2005/2006 for 9/11 Conspiracy Theories to start spreading rapidly on the internet, instead of let’s say... right after 9/11. 2. Why did it only take until about three years ago for 9/11 theories to almost completely die off. Most of us assumed they’d fade away after Loose Change stopped being popular in 2006. Nope they kept spreading online. We thought Bush leaving office would be their demise. Nope, they kept spreading in 2009 and the years that followed. We hoped the death of OBL in 2011 and the 10th anniversary of 9/11 would cause the theories to fade away. Nope, they were still popular online. The 15th anniversary? Still around. Yet the years 2017/2018 showed a rapid decline in support for the theories, as evidenced even here in this sub-forum, where 9/11 CT threads declined to only once a month or less.
Click to expand...

I think it's interesting that 9/11 conspiracy theories declined just as Trump and QAnon became infamous.

People became too involved in debating those things to have time to argue about 9/11 and its minutiae.

The woo from Trump and Q was coming in so fast, the old 9/11 CTs got swamped.
 
MrFliop said:
The thread that started it all! Now that the 9/11 Truth Movement is nothing but an insignificant ghost of its former self, I thought it’d be a great service to all our fellow debunkers to dig up the first thread here to see how all our debunking careers began.

I have two questions to the veterans who’ve been doing this since the beginning. 1. Why did it take until 2005/2006 for 9/11 Conspiracy Theories to start spreading rapidly on the internet, instead of let’s say... right after 9/11. 2. Why did it only take until about three years ago for 9/11 theories to almost completely die off. Most of us assumed they’d fade away after Loose Change stopped being popular in 2006. Nope they kept spreading online. We thought Bush leaving office would be their demise. Nope, they kept spreading in 2009 and the years that followed. We hoped the death of OBL in 2011 and the 10th anniversary of 9/11 would cause the theories to fade away. Nope, they were still popular online. The 15th anniversary? Still around. Yet the years 2017/2018 showed a rapid decline in support for the theories, as evidenced even here in this sub-forum, where 9/11 CT threads declined to only once a month or less.
Click to expand...
Sweet effing jeebus, it's been fifteen years. There are fora where you'd be lucky not to be banned for that sort of necro.
 
Orphia Nay said:
I think it's interesting that 9/11 conspiracy theories declined just as Trump and QAnon became infamous.

People became too involved in debating those things to have time to argue about 9/11 and its minutiae.

The woo from Trump and Q was coming in so fast, the old 9/11 CTs got swamped.
Click to expand...

In that case I think it's more along the lines of 911 Truthers looking at Qanon idiots and asking out loud how anyone can be so stupid, and then having a painful self-awakening.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom