Mouse is the only chamillion bag on these internetses.
What "truth?"
If it's the truth, why is everyone on your side of the argument so afraid of explaining what the truth is? If it's the truth, it should be something that is easy enough to explain -- at least in general terms.
That it somehow cannot be explained in simple terms suggests to me that it's probably not "the truth."
What is your threory of what happened, mouse?
What is your theory of what happened, dan?
What is your theory of what happened, mookie?
Whay is your theory of what happened, elpimpo?
mouse's theory is that he really enjoys screwing with all of us
dan's theory is that if he lies enough times, a small fraction of people will believe him and support his ideology
mookie and elpimpo's theory is that it is better to err on the side of fighting the power
I have a theory of my own:
Conspiranuts generally suffer from low self esteem. This is what they do to make it seem like they have more status, and I mean that in the primate pecking-order kind of way, than they actually do.
That is part of what makes them so rabid and dishonest when it comes to actually presenting "evidence". If the evidence is wrong then so is their self-image as oppressed underdogs, rebels, and anti-heros.
Having never really done well in school, they generally gravitate towards something that offers them some modi of intellectual self-iden y.
This is why they drone on and on about "research" and reading and keeping an open mind, and all the other things that lend genuinely intelligent people some credibility when it comes to talking about topics.
It is simply to make up for their own (generally unacknowledged) shortcomings, that they accuse others of lacking what they themselves lack, however unconsious they are of those shortcomings.
It is, I think, on an emotional level, akin to the jealosy that athletically untalented people feel towards gifted athletes.
On some level, they KNOW they aren't doing good critical thinking, or good fact-checking, and that they are being intellectually dishonest. This is why the first thing they charge debunkers with are a lack of these very things. If they don't possses these qualities, then no one else does either. This again plays into the pseudo-intellectual trapping that they like to wrap themselves in. If they can delude themselves consiously into thinking that they are honest seekers of truth, then they can easily dismiss others who don't agree with themselves as being deceived, or worse, deceivERs.
I guess the internal line of reasoning there is that "if I am smart and honestly seeking the truth, and I have come to position X, then anybody who doesn't agree with X, MUST be dishonest, stupid, and deceitful."
My 2 cents.
Flame away, conspiranuts. Your pychological underpinnings are showing.
The thing that galls me most is when I point out things like the amount of physical force involved, I am "not factoring in all the variables and taking into account the resistance, and the design of the building, etc ,etc ,etc" but when a conspiranut posts similar computations in "Physics 9-11.com" THAT guy is spot on, and no similar demands are made of HIM.
I can't even get a true or false answer to THIS from the CTers:
"True or false, a moving object has kinetic energy".
Ask simple basic things and you get a look like this:
More food for thought:
If there is a big conspiracy, they would be motivated to purposely post a bunch of easily debunkable crap on the internet, so that anybody who is half-way intelligent would see how much bull is out there and conclude that the entire movement is looney.
SO
If the truth movement has been infiltrated in this manner, how do YOU know what is real and what is meant to be easily debunkable?
How does at CTer know?
IF there is a conspiracy, and someone like you jackasses believe the most outlandish, illogical crap and spreads that around, THEN either:
1) You are lying about what you believe, and work for the evil conspiracy.
or
2) You are too stupid to tell reality from the fabricated fantasy of the infiltrators.
Which is it? Evil or stupid?
Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-04-2007 at 01:10 PM.
Welcome to Phy ops 101.If there is a big conspiracy, they would be motivated to do just that. Post a bunch of easily debunkable crap on the internet, so that anybody who is half-way intelligent would see how much bull is out there and conclude that the entire movement is looney.
The only logical explanations:
1) dan is completely full of crap
2) dan is an evil genius running psyops for the Bush Administration
If the truth movement has been infiltrated in this manner, Dan, how do YOU know what is real and what is meant to be easily debunkable?
How does mouse know?
The answer is clear. Dan is part of the conspiracy.
This is actually a logically sound conclusion.
If there is an evil conspiracy, and they put out obviously false evidence for most to find, then anybody who believes all the "evidence" is either not intelligent enough to figure out that the fake stuff IS fake, or lying about what they believe in order to spread the disinformation.
Like I said, if you believe all the conspiracy crap AND there actually IS an evil conspiracy, then you are either stupid or part of that conspiracy, and by definition, evil.
If there ISN'T an evil conspiracy, then you can't be evil (because you can't be part of a conspiracy that doesn't exist), but you CAN be stupid.
THEREFORE
IF you believe ALL the conspiracy evidence you MUST fall into one of two categories:
1) Stupid
2) Lying and evil.
Scientific method RG. Unless you think 911 was intelligent designed too?
Uh-oh, RG. I guess since you disagree with dan you're now officially a bible-thumping neocon.
If the truth movement has been infiltrated in this manner, Dan, how do YOU know what is real and what is meant to be easily debunkable?
If you have not read the NIST report, but have only read conspiracy websites, then you cannot claim to be using anything even remotely approaching "scientific method".
I have read both official stuff and conspiracy stuff. I have spent (wasted) hours of my time watching conspiracy videos.
I am sure you can claim the latter part of that, but doubt you can claim the first.
Yup. That's me.
(pulls out Pat Roberson fan club card)
See?
Still waiting for "the truth" . . . .
Sit down, relax, make yourself a drink . . . 'cause mouse and dan will not provide it anytime soon.
Heh, you can't really blame them. The "truth" movement seems to have actual truth in short supply.
Perhaps a better label would be the "truth according to us" movement.
The "so what's your theory then" questions are borne of the fact that the "naysayers" -- curious how those who accept a view that is compatible with the official story are labeled "naysayers;" as if the notion of a conspiracy should be the starting point for this discussion -- put forward facts and asked questions related to those facts, only to be told that there was some amorphous "truth" they didn't get. When you've been told that there's some truth that you just don't get, it makes sense to me to ask what that "truth" is.
If you actually sat and read the thread, the very thing that you're asking for has been done from its inception. Posters like Chump Dumper, Random Guy, Extra Stout, Phenomanul, and many others who have responded to the assertions of a 9/11 conspiracy and the sparse evidence presented to support an argument that 9/11 happened somehow differently than the orthodox view. In almost every instance, when a 9/11 conspiracy theorlet is introduced, those who don't buy the conspiracy argument have presented answers that certainly appear to be rooted in scientific principles in response. Those posters seem to know a great deal more about physics and engineering principles than I do. That the conspiracy theorists might not feel bound by those principles is, I think, among the more telling deficiencies in the conspiracy arguments.
Furthermore, I'm appalled by the intimation that the non-conspiracy types are somehow unwilling to debate these issues. This thread hasn't reached 25 pages and 600+ posts because of an unwillingness to have a discussion. That some don't buy the conspiracy notion and won't likely do so absent concrete proof of such a conspiracy isn't the equivalent of a refusal to have a genuine discussion. If anything, I think the reverse characterization is more apt -- I'm not sure that many of the conspiracy theorists are truly interested in having a discussion of this subject.
Ultimately, I don't know that asking for someone to spell out a coherent theory from the conspiracy sect about what "really happened" on 9/11 is an ad hominem attack. It seems to me to a logical retort in the debate that's been on-going in this thread and others.
If there's some "truth" that people like ChumpDumper, RandomGuy and others just aren't accepting, I would think it would be fairly easy to spell that "truth" out in some detail. Hence, my question. Remarkably, nobody on the conspiracy side is willing (or able) to do that.
Sorry the thread does not reach your quality control standards. You are probably better of not reading it, then.
It's ironic you would say that given your propensity to post one line meaningless zinggers.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
