Any Conspiracy-Busters here?

[richardm]

That picture proves nothing, for reasons already explained above.

Quite apart from the fact that it doesn't even look like a person, except in the sketchiest manner.

Certainly nothing as convincing as this photo - and the fire brigade video taken from a slightly different angle at the same time clearly shows the face to be the end of a burning beam.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

iran/contra, blood diamonds, the plot to kill caesar, mccarthyism...read "the people history of the united states by howard zinn, there is over 1000 pages of researched conspiracy in some form or another in there as well...

It should also be pointed out that if one were to buy the whole story of 911 as it is told, then you would be buying into a different conspiracy...the one where a couple of guys in the mountains of afghanistan conspired to bomb the WTC and pentagon with the help of 19 other people...something that would take years to do, and yet, in Osama's confession he clearly states the highjackers didn't know what they would be doing until the day of the attack.

Ummm....no. Iran/Contra was not a conspiracy. It was people breaking the law and they got caught. Don't know what "blood diamonds" are. McCarthyism? LOL!

Is that the best you got?

 

[thesyntaxera]

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2023320890224991194&q=loose+change

past that in and view it. debunk it, trash it, do whatever, just please watch it all before you respond, and please cite specifics in regards to the flaws of the video.

thank you in advance for you consideration, and please lets keep this on low heat, there is no reason for you all to fly to pieces just because we are talking about the possibility that there might be something to the claims regardless of how many websites debunk them.

 

[thesyntaxera]

Ummm....no. Iran/Contra was not a conspiracy. It was people breaking the law and they got caught. Don't know what "blood diamonds" are. McCarthyism? LOL!

Is that the best you got?

the best I got??? isn't people talking secretly to commit illegal arms exchanges to fund death squads a conspiracy?

you have the internet...look up the words "blood diamonds" in google.

McCarthyism lol? Not really funny when you consider how many lives were ruined at the behest of the Red Scare, on top of the outrageous claims made by McCarthy against fellow americans.

 

[thesyntaxera]

If the woman in the photo is too small...enlarge it.

 

[Morrison's Lament]

Alex Jones? Dear jumping Jebus...

I just can't bring myself to listen to one more thing he has to say, he's clearly ill and needs help. It's too bad Sacred Cow keeps promoting his rantings, it's quite embarrassing.

--- G.

 

[thesyntaxera]

Alex Jones? Dear jumping Jebus...

I just can't bring myself to listen to one more thing he has to say, he's clearly ill and needs help. It's too bad Sacred Cow keeps promoting his rantings, it's quite embarrassing.

--- G.

typical response I suppose, you can label me as raving or ill if you like, I'm just asking you to take a second look and engage in some exploratory conversation.

or you can just quit reading.

I am not asking you to take a side..I just happen to think that if you used deduction instead of induction you might think the same way...or something slightly similar.

 

[thesyntaxera]

and who is Sacred Cow? I actually haven't read any other threads due to my slow dial up speed and the fact that I have been occupied responding to unfounded claims.

 

[Morrison's Lament]

You are Alex Jones? If not, then I haven't labeled you as anything at all.

I'm just saying that a cursory glance at his life's work indicates he's off his medication and probably not a good source to be citing if you want to be taken seriously.

Sacred Cow is Bill Hicks' old publishing company, they publish some of my favorite stand-up comedians of all time. And... Alex Jones

--- G.

 

[Morrison's Lament]

Oh, and if Alex Jones' theories about the event and it's causes are going to be part of this debate we have to start talking about the Illuminati, and that will just make things extremely silly.

--- G.

 

[Morrison's Lament]

Check out Alex arguing that cancer is caused by vaccination:

Cancer was a very rare illness in the 1890's. This evidence about immune system injury from vaccinating affords a plausible explanation for Dr. Clarke's finding that only vaccinated individuals got cancer. Some radical adverse change in health occurred in the early 1900s to permit cancer to explode and vaccinating appears to be the reason.

Vaccines are an unnatural phenomena. My guess is that if enough persons said no to immunizations there would be a striking improvement in general health with nature back in the immunizing business instead of man. Having a child vaccinated should be a choice not a requirement. Medical and religious exemptions are permitted by most states.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2004/201004shouldavoid.htm

The man is unstable and dangerous.

--- G.

 

[kookbreaker]

kookbreaker-
was it something other than blind reactionism? do tell.

Yes, and you need to get over yourself.

I am sure there were papers flying all about as they were on the live video, the reason the claim is questionable is because were talking about a thick piece of paper at the exact location of the explosion leaping out of the plane, out of the building, and then landing several blocks away...this is no cause for concern from you?

Why is so hard for you to understandthat a pretected piece of paper might have survived? Explain to me how this is a problem when you can accept that unlaminated paper from an office that was engulfed and destroyed is able to survive?

"Another example of poor thinking: Why do you think it is hard to pilot a plane that is already in the air? A single question to a commerical pilot, or even an experienced amatuer would have shown this claim to be complete and utter nonsense. But I guess doing that would mean you lose a bullet point, eh?"

Have you asked them?

Yes.

What did they say?

Pretty much what any person would expect: Its not that hard to fly a plane once it is off the ground, especially if you don't care about: Turbulance, time, FAA regulations, the comfort of the passengers, and so forth.

I guess an amatuer pilot could bring a 757 to feet off the ground without blowing over everything in it's path?

What are you babbling about? Is this the plane hitting the Pentagon? If so you could not be more wrong.

Is that what you are saying? Or are you making the guess that they would say such things?

I have asked pilots. Get over yourself.

See I thought I would come here and find some people who actually had something to debunk the conspiracy theory with besides someone else inductive approach to reasoning. What I am beginning to notice is that of the people who have so far replied, none of you is capable of offering a more logical explanation. If you could you would have. Instead, you hide behind semantics, ad hominem, poor reasoning, and a single website that suffers from the same thing.

No, we are offering, you are just not listening. You are substituting whining and complaining for counterarguements.

 

[Morrison's Lament]

It's become clear that the devil's advocate is more than a little into his role

--- G.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

the best I got??? isn't people talking secretly to commit illegal arms exchanges to fund death squads a conspiracy?

you have the internet...look up the words "blood diamonds" in google.

McCarthyism lol? Not really funny when you consider how many lives were ruined at the behest of the Red Scare, on top of the outrageous claims made by McCarthy against fellow americans.

Could you answer a few questions?

/Start woo-woo bleever check

1) Who killed JFK?
2) On July 20, 1969, did a US astronaut set foot on the moon?
3) Did George W Bush conspire with Diebold to rig the 2004 election?
4) Does the Illuminati, working closely with Jewish bankers and the Trilateral Commision, secretly rule the world?

/end check

 

[thesyntaxera]

Why don't you all step back and quit reading too far into what I am saying, your paranoia about me is starting to look very comparable to the very things you are trying to discredit.

There is no agenda other than a personal one. What you might have gathered is that I am trying to find legitimate sources to debunk these allegations. I am not in support of any view one way or the other. You are all reacting, and looking for things that aren't there when it comes to things like me being comparable to Alex Jones or others of his like...your gathering an awful lot from a few posts.

My point initially was to try and sort out the problem with this particular conspiracy theory.

What it seems you haven't realized is that even though there isn't enough evidence to say conspiracy, there isn't enough public evidence to convince one otherwise. As I pointed out earlier, this 911myths.com is no better than any letsroll, or infoclearinghouse. The sum of the skepticism amounts to faithfully accepting what the given story is because why would it be anything else. Every explanation offered only leaves more open for conspiracy nuts to pick away at...ie they draw conclusions based on testimony, not evidence, they rationalize a bias in favor of the offcial story regardless of all the circumstantial evidence laying all over place...there shouldn't be any ammo for a conspiracist to latch onto in the first place.

In the end, what I was getting at is that there are a million leads that could have been followed, why follow these particular ones to reach the official conclusion?

and still more questions..like why only 5 frames of the pentagon, why not make them all public, or at least ones that don't compromise national security...whats that? they all do? all but those 5? ok...ummm there isn't one single angle that shows a plane? Why? Not one single frame?

Whats on the 28 pages of the Comission report?


Why not make sure your case was air tight?

Why not clear up any rumors by pursuing these leads and dispelling them with public fact?

 

[Year Zero]

Why don't you all step back and quit reading too far into what I am saying, your paranoia about me is starting to look very comparable to the very things you are trying to discredit.

Paranoia? Who do you think you're fooling? I've been debating with advocates of these conspiracy theories for about six months now on another forum. They are FAR more convincing than you, though they use what are basically better refined versions of the arguments you are produceing.

There is no agenda other than a personal one. What you might have gathered is that I am trying to find legitimate sources to debunk these allegations. I am not in support of any view one way or the other. You are all reacting, and looking for things that aren't there when it comes to things like me being comparable to Alex Jones or others of his like...your gathering an awful lot from a few posts.

You do realize that several of your claims have already been fully debunked as they are full of mistakes regarding the simple details.

What it seems you haven't realized is that even though there isn't enough evidence to say conspiracy, there isn't enough public evidence to convince one otherwise. As I pointed out earlier, this 911myths.com is no better than any letsroll, or infoclearinghouse.

911Myths is no better than the conspiracy sites? Explain why. Also explain why you continue to ignore refutations of your claims on here, even simply refutations of critical details, by myself and other posters.

In the end, what I was getting at is that there are a million leads that could have been followed, why follow these particular ones to reach the official conclusion?

Actually many of those "leads" are dead ends because they were concocted by people who have absolutely no knowledge of the fields involved e.g. engineering and demolitions.

and still more questions..like why only 5 frames of the pentagon, why not make them all public, or at least ones that don't compromise national security...whats that? they all do? all but those 5? ok...ummm there isn't one single angle that shows a plane? Why? Not one single frame?

Once again, here's another claim that has been debunked literally years ago. There are more than five frames of the Pentagon. There are pictures of plane debris at the Pentagon:

http://snopes.com/rumors/images/pent2.jpg[IMG]

Sixteen feet wide?


You DO realize that the black boxes were recovered inside the debris right?

[QUOTE="thesyntaxera, post: 1833824, member: 7348"]
Whats on the 28 pages of the Comission report?[/QUOTE]

Probably not proof of demolition charges and remote control planes.

[QUOTE="thesyntaxera, post: 1833824, member: 7348"]
Why not make sure your case was air tight? [/QUOTE]

It's not a matter of being "air tight". It's a matter of the conspiracy theories not having an actual case to begin with.

[QUOTE="thesyntaxera, post: 1833824, member: 7348"]
Why not clear up any rumors by pursuing these leads and dispelling them with public fact?[/QUOTE]

Gee, it seems every time they get dispelled by FEMA, NIST, the Port Authority, etc, someone just calls it "disinformation".

 

[kookbreaker]

What it seems you haven't realized is that even though there isn't enough evidence to say conspiracy, there isn't enough public evidence to convince one otherwise.

Except for the all the evidence pointing to the fact that there was one.

As I pointed out earlier, this 911myths.com is no better than any letsroll, or infoclearinghouse.

Your personal opinion, and not a well supported one. You sem to base it on the idea that since he does not utterly destroy everything in his site it is somehow a failure. That is a very binary thinking process.

The sum of the skepticism amounts to faithfully accepting what the given story is because why would it be anything else.

No. The sum of skepticism is to look at the conpsiracy picture as a whole and realise that it does not make a lick of sense.

Every explanation offered only leaves more open for conspiracy nuts to pick away at...ie they draw conclusions based on testimony, not evidence, they rationalize a bias in favor of the offcial story regardless of all the circumstantial evidence laying all over place...there shouldn't be any ammo for a conspiracist to latch onto in the first place.

Guess what: THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN! If you understood how the conspiracy mind works, you will realise that even if every aspect is covered, then the conpiracists will simply invent stuff. If you give me any conspiracy theory, I can find things that were outright inventions of the CTs to support their theory.

In the end, what I was getting at is that there are a million leads that could have been followed, why follow these particular ones to reach the official conclusion?

Dead end leads can often be seen to be junk from a long way away.

and still more questions..like why only 5 frames of the pentagon, why not make them all public, or at least ones that don't compromise national security...whats that? they all do? all but those 5? ok...ummm there isn't one single angle that shows a plane? Why? Not one single frame?

You assume these things exist, or were not destroyed. And yes, the Pentagon is a heavily secured structure, sometimes you don't want to let folks know where the security camera are.

And to what end? A few frames to convince paranoid morons who make claims like 'no plane wreckage' and other nonsense? These bozos would ignore or reject any such shots in any case.

Whats on the 28 pages of the Comission report?

Why not make sure your case was air tight?

See above.

Why not clear up any rumors by pursuing these leads and dispelling them with public fact?

Becuase most of the 'leads' are complete and utter crap, and anyone who takes more than a cursory glance at the evidence, or looks deeper than the 'Hunt the Boeing' pages without a CT agenda can see they are crap.

"Dispelling" does not work, in fact it merely fuels the CTs.

 

[thesyntaxera]

kookbreaker-year 0

Are this the bits of wisdom that are supposed to just blast me out of the water?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_%28philosophy%29

"Induction or inductive reasoning, sometimes called inductive logic, is the process of reasoning in which the premises (assumption or hypothesis) of an argument support the conclusion, but do not ensure it. It is to ascribe properties or relations to types based on limited observations of particular tokens; or to formulate laws based on limited observations of recurring phenomenal patterns."

"Formal logic as most people learn it is deductive rather than inductive. Some philosophers claim to have created systems of inductive logic, but it is controversial whether a logic of induction is even possible. In contrast to deductive reasoning, conclusions arrived at by inductive reasoning do not necessarily have the same degree of certainty as the initial assumptions. For example, a conclusion that all swans are white is obviously wrong, but may have been thought correct in Europe until the settlement of Australia. Inductive arguments are never binding but they may be cogent. Inductive reasoning is deductively invalid. (An argument in formal logic is valid if and only if it is not possible for the premises of the argument to be true whilst the conclusion is false.)"

the entire case either for or against conspiracy in this case is based in the world of induction. I have stated this many times...

You should know this is flawed reasoning, and you should know this is why conspiracy hacks continue to thrive.

If a simple and straight forward deductive investigation was performed there would be no questions. Thus there would be no place for a legitimate conspiracy to form. Sure your not going to stop everyone, and you don't need to. This is a country that allows freedom of speech. Why silence them and give them more reason to be paranoid?

Again these are not my claims, these a common claims that survive on the internet long after being made, I am not a proponent of any of them. Except that the official story doesn't add up, and that more information needs to be released to satisfy the public.

Whats your problem with that? Is it because I can guarantee you that any claim you can make in favor of the offcial tale can be refuted? Is it because I shot down your shoddy right brain analogies?

Or is it that you simply would rather engage in intellectual swordplay than have an intelligent discussion with me on this subject?

Your on a internet forum, the only thing your proving is how close-minded skepticism has made you...you fail to realize that your religious adherence to the skeptical ideology that you favor is just as bad as the so called conspiracy guru's adherence to the fantastic. You are not doing any better of a job in other words, so quite whining about them.

in the words given to me from one of you...get over yourselves, and your self-righteous indignation.

Now, can we talk about this logically for a second, or do you want to keep riding on the semantic express train that only goes in circles?

 

[kookbreaker]

kookbreaker-year 0

Are this the bits of wisdom that are supposed to just blast me out of the water?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_%28philosophy%29

"Induction or inductive reasoning, sometimes called inductive logic, is the process of reasoning in which the premises (assumption or hypothesis) of an argument support the conclusion, but do not ensure it. It is to ascribe properties or relations to types based on limited observations of particular tokens; or to formulate laws based on limited observations of recurring phenomenal patterns."

"Formal logic as most people learn it is deductive rather than inductive. Some philosophers claim to have created systems of inductive logic, but it is controversial whether a logic of induction is even possible. In contrast to deductive reasoning, conclusions arrived at by inductive reasoning do not necessarily have the same degree of certainty as the initial assumptions. For example, a conclusion that all swans are white is obviously wrong, but may have been thought correct in Europe until the settlement of Australia. Inductive arguments are never binding but they may be cogent. Inductive reasoning is deductively invalid. (An argument in formal logic is valid if and only if it is not possible for the premises of the argument to be true whilst the conclusion is false.)"

the entire case either for or against conspiracy in this case is based in the world of induction. I have stated this many times...

Pwah! Conspriacy theories are not based on anything but a handful of carefully selected facts that manage to ignore the realities of the world. There's nothing inductive or logical about them whatsoever!

You should know this is flawed reasoning, and you should know this is why conspiracy hacks continue to thrive.

Conspriacy theoreis thrive because people want to be 'special' in knowing things they think the rest of the world does not know. They then spread the arguement using ignorance of reality as their tool.

If a simple and straight forward deductive investigation was performed there would be no questions. Thus there would be no place for a legitimate conspiracy to form.

Nonsense. In every field where there are conspiracy theories, where there has been a complete investigation, the conspriacy theorists just ignore it and make up their own details

Sure your not going to stop everyone, and you don't need to. This is a country that allows freedom of speech. Why silence them and give them more reason to be paranoid?

Whose silencing them? Not me.

Again these are not my claims, these a common claims that survive on the internet long after being made, I am not a proponent of any of them. Except that the official story doesn't add up, and that more information needs to be released to satisfy the public.

Whats your problem with that? Is it because I can guarantee you that any claim you can make in favor of the offcial tale can be refuted? Is it because I shot down your shoddy right brain analogies?

Don't flatter yourself, you haven't shot down anything. Your 'common claims' are nonsense and you refused to support them with any arguements whatsoever.

Or is it that you simply would rather engage in intellectual swordplay than have an intelligent discussion with me on this subject?

I'm waiting for you to stop bobbing and weaving about imaginary investigatiosn that will somehow magically stop all the CTs and get down to brass tacks!

Your on a internet forum, the only thing your proving is how close-minded skepticism has made you...

**YAWN**

you fail to realize that your religious adherence to the skeptical ideology that you favor is just as bad as the so called conspiracy guru's adherence to the fantastic. You are not doing any better of a job in other words, so quite whining about them.

In this thread I haven't done much of a job because the only CT proponent is inept. Quit argueing the standard-issue-woowoo line of "You are closed minded" and get on with it!

in the words given to me from one of you...get over yourselves, and your self-righteous indignation.

You really are not very good at this, are you?

Now, can we talk about this logically for a second, or do you want to keep riding on the semantic express train that only goes in circles?

I've been waiting on you. So far, the only thing you have done to support your argumeent is link to a complete crank's video and claim that 911myths doesn't do what you want them to do.

 

[Ed]

The way you have answered all of the claims put out by the 911 conspiracy community is with one to two sentences of drivel that contain no relevant facts or data to lead me to any alternate conclusions..which is what I was asking for...it also reveals an apparent lack of knowledge on your part regarding that which you claim is so easily debunkable....don't you think being familiar with the claims would make you better equipt to answer the questions?

I think that it is generally pointless to refute CTs point by point, the feast is too movable, so to speak. I prefer to take more of a meta view.

I am going to present one fact against which all CT's must be judged for reasonableness.

The President of The United States of America could not keep a blow job performed in the Oval Office secret.

The reality of this fact calls into serious question CTs that require the involvement of more than 2 people. For the sake of not looking absolutely stupid it seems to me that CT proponents need to explain, in detail, how the one was displayed for all the world to see and how the other, with many more moving parts, was not. I don't care about jet fuel or holes in the Pentagon or unidentified arabs. I want to know how the president, with his power and authority, cannot get a private hummer when the knocking down of major buildings can be performed with the awareness of only a few who have crystaline insight. Then we can proceed.