What is a conspiracy theorist?

You also have to leave room for a counter argument. If a person tries to counter an argument that is said to be proven wrong, that is not sticking with it regardless, that is debate. In a debate somebody wins somebody losses. You kill debate by saying "they are proven wrong and stick with it", but if they have further arguing points that contradict yours then they should stick to it. If it was a debate on anything else it is ecceptable, but when talking about conspiracies it is not ecceptable?


If there is still evidence outstanding that hasn't been considered, then we haven't "won" any debate, and we shouldn't be coming to conclusions in any case, except maybe some tenative conclusions.

The problem here is, there doesn't seem to be any such outstanding evidence. We've heard pretty much all of it, and it's unlikely that efforts by laypeople will produce any new evidence. If you think you do have some evidence which has not been considered, that's a different topic. But don't just assume we've missed it, do a search, and try to find out if it's been discussed. If not, great, bring it out and let's see it.

One big reason we get annoyed at new people here is because they often come in acting like they have the greatest evidence of all time that will convince everyone, and assume we've never seen it (since we haven't been convinced, you see), and then turn around and spout off the standard CT mantras almost word for word.

As an example, consider the debut of 28th Kingdom.
 
Wrong, my statement is not an universal affirmative. I didn't say that the only logical explaination is controlled demolision like universal affirmation would imply. I simply said it is certainly possible that it was demolition. It is also possible to have a progrssive collapse, but more unlikely in a freefall scenario. Even more unlikely 3 buildings in a single day. I would be interested in another example of a near freefall progressive collapse.

I would like you to show me 3 more unique building in the world first.

I want you to show me a building that has not failed in fire when it is not fought. Please include 10,000 gallons of jet fuel as the fire starter. And throw in a blast or impact equal to 1300 to 2200 pounds of TNT.

WTC7 had fuel in it and heavy generators in it. How much fuel?

Fires not fought as in WTC1, 2, and 7, will have the building fail.

Countless examples are out there of fire destroying buildings. If the WTC 7 had a concrete core it may have stood. WTC 1 and 2 if they had concrete cores they may have stood. Sorry that steel fails in fire but the examples of steel failure in fire are understood all over the world except for the fact challenged truth movement.
 
A preponderance of the evidence. Same as with every other conclusion. If new evidence comes to light, we may re-evaluate the conclusions.

What other answer did you expect? "The fairies told me"?

Ah, so the evidence doesn't show that I am not him, but there just isn't any real proof. Ok. Got it.
 
I don't understand your picture point.
So are you saying that the exterior failed and collapsed and the core blew over in the wind?
You do not understand my picture point shows part of the building still standing. You said it all fell down together, there is still some standing your statement was not true. Sorry. Have you even studied 9/11?

No, you did. You said the core was built first you were wrong. You looked up stuff and still did not understand the shell was the lateral support. You confirmed the core is the major gravity support.

The WTC collapsed on itself and released 248 tons of TNT energy as it fell to the ground. The building damaged itself and it fell.

I said if just the bare core of the WTC was standing it would fall in the wind. Just a fact. Ask the builder, I am sure it is more complicated than this. But the simple story is the shell is the lateral support the core is the major gravity support. Do you agree or disagree?

Would you think it wise to study all of 9/11 before joining the lemmings in the truth movement?

As a review you looked up stuff and it said, or could be said this way and many would agree with you.
The load carrying system was designed so that the steel facade would resist lateral and gravity forces and the interior steel core would carry only gravity loads.
 
Last edited:
If there is still evidence outstanding that hasn't been considered, then we haven't "won" any debate, and we shouldn't be coming to conclusions in any case, except maybe some tenative conclusions.

The problem here is, there doesn't seem to be any such outstanding evidence. We've heard pretty much all of it, and it's unlikely that efforts by laypeople will produce any new evidence. If you think you do have some evidence which has not been considered, that's a different topic. But don't just assume we've missed it, do a search, and try to find out if it's been discussed. If not, great, bring it out and let's see it.

One big reason we get annoyed at new people here is because they often come in acting like they have the greatest evidence of all time that will convince everyone, and assume we've never seen it (since we haven't been convinced, you see), and then turn around and spout off the standard CT mantras almost word for word.

As an example, consider the debut of 28th Kingdom.

Do you think that they should all have different arguments? And does the other side spout off standard NIST mantras almost word for word?

So are people conspiracy theorist because they hold conspiracy theories or because they don't search JREF for all the answers before they ask a question?

Both sides are conspiracy theories. You say 19 Arabs conspired to crash planes in the WTC, but there is not enough evidence to point directly at an assailant. Without evidence it remains a theory.
 
Hearst was also alive in.. 1890?

While I think you agree with Chomsky (Noam), I'm not sure that it's quite that bad. (Incidently, Harriman's first name is what? I can't confirm what you're saying)

Chomsky? Absolutely not!

It's William Averill Harriman. But go with Averill, as that's what he was known by. You won't find much about direct ownership of the media. However, he and his group of NY/London banking oligarchs had a great deal of control over the media; through funding, as well as the Skull & Bones/CIA networks that were loyal to them.

You'll probably find reference to him being an ambassador to Russia for Truman, I believe. Keep digging; you'll find plenty about the Brown Bros.-Harriman (with Prescott Bush as Director) funding of Hitler's rise.
 
Wrong, my statement is not an universal affirmative.
Without Rights said:
It is easy. If the building fell in 10-15 (close to freefall speed) or so secs, and demolition makes buildings fall at freefall speed (9-11 sec), then it is a simple conclusion that it is possible that explosives brought down the towers.
Yes, it is.
I didn't say that the only logical explaination is controlled demolision like universal affirmation would imply.
Please, read a logical textbook. Universal affirmation does not imply exclusive causality. Universal affirmation is simply a statement of class. All hematite contains iron, all monazite contains cerium. The iron does not cause the class to be hematite, but rather is indicative of it.
I simply said it is certainly possible that it was demolition.
Backpedaling must be tiring. You were asked to prove that explosives brought down the towers, and you applied two statements: the affirmative and the conversion. Your statement implied the use of universal class identification because you can prove nothing otherwise.

Furthermore, you did not even prove that a controlled demolition is possible through your argument. For you to prove a statistical possibility, both of your statements must assign a statistical value that is non-unity. If you start with a universal affirmative, you cannot prove a non-unity event.
It is also possible to have a progrssive collapse, but more unlikely in a freefall scenario.
Care to show some math for that?
Even more unlikely 3 buildings in a single day.
Today, walking into work, I saw the following 10 license plate numbers:
IFI 484
UNU 100
ION 572
PRB 582
SAM 221
ARE 103
BAB 225
SIM 166
BII 191
IAL 785

What are the odds of seeing those exact license plate numbers in that order on this day?
I would be interested in another example of a near freefall progressive collapse.
Why does something have to happen more than once for you to believe it is possible?
 
Do you think that they should all have different arguments? And does the other side spout off standard NIST mantras almost word for word?

So are people conspiracy theorist because they hold conspiracy theories or because they don't search JREF for all the answers before they ask a question?

Both sides are conspiracy theories. You say 19 Arabs conspired to crash planes in the WTC, but there is not enough evidence to point directly at an assailant. Without evidence it remains a theory.
Wrong again. We have 19 terrorist who did pilot 4 planes into the US with intent to bring terrorism to us. 3 of 4 made their targets but the passengers of 93 beat them, and saved further insult.

Terrrorist 75 percent, we were 100 percent when we knew the rules.

You are a zero fact CTer. You present zero facts and cannot even read to understand the real evidence. Who piloted the planes? You can not answer because as you have shown you can not comprehend simple facts on the WTC, how can you take evidence and make a conclusion. Go over to the LCF where you may be praised for you insight.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?act=idx

Or the even dumber pilots for truth, you will be a god on 9/11 junk!

http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?act=idx

Both web sites reward the terminally stupid with high praise.

The 19 terrorist are not a CT, they were the conspiracy! You are having great problems with facts and evidence vs fraud and lies.
 
Chomsky? Absolutely not!

It's William Averill Harriman. But go with Averill, as that's what he was known by. You won't find much about direct ownership of the media. However, he and his group of NY/London banking oligarchs had a great deal of control over the media; through funding, as well as the Skull & Bones/CIA networks that were loyal to them.

You'll probably find reference to him being an ambassador to Russia for Truman, I believe. Keep digging; you'll find plenty about the Brown Bros.-Harriman (with Prescott Bush as Director) funding of Hitler's rise.


.. Huh. Had a post, with analysis and all and it got wiped. Anyway, looking through Wikipedia, I can find proof they represented Thyssian (who was an early backer, later repudiated Nazisim because of the Catholic Church supressing.)

But none about Communism. (I also remind you of events at the time before you draw connotations, please)

Also.. funding does not imply control.
 
I don't buy it.
CTers can not buy it, they can not find a fact to save their lives. The lemmings of the truth movement have no clue. Some will wake up to reason and logic, some will continue in a terminally stupid stupor for life.

If only they and you had facts to back up your ideas.

What is a conspiracy theorist?
someone who lacks facts.
 
Last edited:
Ah, so the evidence doesn't show that I am not him, but there just isn't any real proof. Ok. Got it.

Both sides are conspiracy theories. You say 19 Arabs conspired to crash planes in the WTC, but there is not enough evidence to point directly at an assailant. Without evidence it remains a theory.


Actually, even with evidence, it remains a theory. Until proven! And, I guess around here, things aren't proven until the teevee media says so.

I concur.



You both need to learn a bit more about what "theory" "evidence" and "proof" mean.



In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.


...


In practice a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a minimum empirical basis. That is, it:

* is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense, and
* is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct.

Additionally, a theory is generally only taken seriously if it:

* is tentative, correctable and dynamic, in allowing for changes to be made as new data is discovered, rather than asserting certainty, and
* is the most parsimonious explanation, sparing in proposed entities or explanations, commonly referred to as passing the Occam's razor test.

This is true of such established theories as special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, evolution, etc. Theories considered scientific meet at least most, but ideally all, of these extra criteria.

Theories do not have to be perfectly accurate to be scientifically useful. The predictions made by Classical mechanics are known to be inaccurate, but they are sufficiently good approximations in most circumstances that they are still very useful and widely used in place of more accurate but mathematically difficult theories.

Sometimes it happens that two theories are found to make exactly the same predictions. In this case, they are indistinguishable, and the choice between them reduces to which is the more convenient.
 
.. Huh. Had a post, with analysis and all and it got wiped. Anyway, looking through Wikipedia, I can find proof they represented Thyssian (who was an early backer, later repudiated Nazisim because of the Catholic Church supressing.)

But none about Communism. (I also remind you of events at the time before you draw connotations, please)

Also.. funding does not imply control.

Yeah, Thyssan "repudiated" Nazism; to save his Nazi ass.

You mention Communism; I don't think I ever said anything about Communism.

Funding doesn't imply control? Huh. Since when?
 
Last edited:
Nope. 3 flew planes into buildings, one crashed it in a field in PA, and the other 15 were the muscle that took over the aircraft. Fact.

Ah, "fact." And what makes this a fact? Because somebody said so? Because it was on the teevee? Because "everybody knows?"
 

Back
Top Bottom