• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What I Think Really Happened on 9/11/2001 [W:460]

A conspiracy is testable using facts, logic and reason.
A conspiracy theory is a logical fallacy, a conjecture that is backed up by weak evidence or none at all and characterized by a particular method of non-thinking with little regard being placed on the factuality or accuracy of the core material.

.

And, of course, the conspiracy theorist will simply create a new conspiracy when failing to substantiate an old one.

For instance, this theme that any person encountered on a discussion board who displays so much as the tiniest scrap of sanity MUST be a paid "debunker".
 
A conspiracy theory is a logical fallacy, a conjecture that is backed up by weak evidence or none at all and characterized by a particular method of non-thinking with little regard being placed on the factuality or accuracy of the core material.

So law enforcement officials, including criminal investigators are all engaged in concocting logical fallacies then?
 
So law enforcement officials, including criminal investigators are all engaged in concocting logical fallacies then?

Since I can't put it better... From the post Bob ignores/can't comprehend.


A conspiracy is testable using facts, logic and reason. (What law enforcement officials, including criminal investigators concluded, a conspiracy by 19 Bad Muslims with the support of Al Qaeda)

A conspiracy theory is a logical fallacy, a conjecture that is backed up by weak evidence or none at all and characterized by a particular method of non-thinking with little regard being placed on the factuality or accuracy of the core material. (What Bob and other CTers constantly shovel)
 
Believing in something you have zero evidence of is not a good thing when it comes to convincing people of things. Sad that that even needs to be written, but this very simple idea is apparently difficult for many to grasp.
 
And, of course, the conspiracy theorist will simply create a new conspiracy when failing to substantiate an old one.

For instance, this theme that any person encountered on a discussion board who displays so much as the tiniest scrap of sanity MUST be a paid "debunker".

Which is taking things to the extreme, just as saying there aren't any.
 
Which is taking things to the extreme, just as saying there aren't any.

Present your evidence of a "paid debunker".

or maybe you are one:mrgreen:
 
Terrorist d-bags with a long history of attacking the U.S. and American interests concocted a relatively simple plan to attack four symbols of American economic, political and military power by combining two of their long-time favorite plays; hijacking and suicide bombings. This plan required modest resources, few plotters and very little special skill. Its risk was very low and the potential payoff very high. The damage suffered in New York, Washington DC and Shanksville is entirely consistent with Kamikaze suicide attack by hijacked airliner AND NOTHING ELSE.

The attacks were preventable if American authorities had displayed just a bit more competence and a lot less institutional intransigence. But there is no evidence anyone in the U.S. government actively participated in or consciously allowed the plot to succeed.

There, now its your turn.

Its more than just what you think, its what actually happened.
 
Last edited:

yet no mention of this site in the listed articles. I have no doubt the govt plays with the media to sway the public. The same could be suspected of certain movements.

Your still playing the What if game. Your statement was specific to DP.
So what evidence do you have that some posters here are paid govt posters?

ex: without specific supporting evidence this is false logic.
CD can take down a building.
the towers destruction looked similar to CD
therefore the towers were taken down by CD.
 
Last edited:
A conspiracy theory is a logical fallacy, a conjecture that is backed up by weak evidence or none at all and characterized by a particular method of non-thinking with little regard being placed on the factuality or accuracy of the core material.

A minimum of one lie per day.

The No Conspiracy Theory Conspiracy
by Michael Fullerton

If you’ve ever wondered if there is something fundamentally wrong with mainstream skepticism, the mainstream media, and society in general, you only have to look at how the term “conspiracy theory” is used.

This phrase is composed of two terms which by themselves are neutral. The term “theory” in this context simply means a possible explanation. A conspiracy occurs whenever two or more people work together to achieve a nefarious goal.

Conspiracies then are ubiquitous in human society. A large portion of our legal system is devoted to conspiracy. Much human history likewise involves grand conspiracies. The Nazi Holocaust for example, is the idea that the Nazis secretly killed millions of Jewish people by gassing them en masse.

By putting the two word definitions together to make the phrase “conspiracy theory”, you simply have an explanation for an event that involved people working together to reach a nefarious end.

In fact, this is precisely the meaning that the phrase “conspiracy theory” referred to before 1963.[1] After 1963, the year of the JFK assassination, the term “conspiracy theory” came to denote a paranoid outlandish impossible belief that people in positions of great power conspired to do something malevolent.

All mainstream “skeptics” use the term “conspiracy theory” to reject outright any claims involving powerful people working together to do bad things. It is also used as a term of ridicule to denigrate a person instead of dealing with their arguments. In effect, the term then is what is referred to as a thought-terminating cliché. Such a device is used to quell cognitive dissonance or justify fallacious reasoning.

Indeed, look at what these “skeptics” are doing. They aren’t dealing with the arguments justifying a conspiracy. They are rejecting outright the argument simply because it involves a conspiracy. In order to reject outright any explanation involving a conspiracy, no conspiracies must ever have occurred.

In fact though, history is rife with conspiracies. Countless times psychopathic rulers have waged war on other nations for purely selfish reasons. They conspired to convince their subjects to put their lives on the line in order to benefit their leader. Since grand conspiracies do in fact happen, those who automatically reject any new potential conspiracies are clearly suffering from a serious delusion. They are rejecting evidence-based reality in order to maintain a comforting faith-based belief system.

Every current disparaging use of the term “conspiracy theory” is fallacious. Pronouncing that an argument is false simply because it involves a conspiracy is a bare assertion. Arguments should be evidence-based, not faith-based. Dismissively calling a person a “conspiracy theorist” instead of dealing with their argument is an ad hominem. The argument should be attacked, not the person making it. Claiming an argument involving a conspiracy is false because it hasn’t been proven true is an appeal to ignorance.

Because of this sophist use of the term “conspiracy theory”, every mainstream “skeptic” that uses the term disparagingly is misrepresenting himself as a critical thinker. In other words, they are all frauds.


How did this no-conspiracy delusion originate? Before the JFK assassination in 1963, the term “conspiracy theory” was neutral. It simply meant what it should mean: a proposed explanation involving a conspiracy. At this time the term wasn’t denoting a paranoid outlandish delusion that couldn’t possibly be true. Conspiracies are after all very commonplace. The entire history of human civilization is a history of conspiracies.

After the Warren Commission report was released amid an outcry of skeptics, the CIA with the help of powerful media interests, instituted a propaganda campaign to turn the term “conspiracy theory” into one of derision.[2] A crucial piece of evidence for this comes from CIA Document 1035-960: “Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report”. This document outlines a strategy of using propaganda techniques to neutralize critics of the Warren Report.[3] In effect, the report documents how to weaponize the term “conspiracy theory”. It details how to “employ propaganda assets” to discredit critics.

The fact that so many of us fell for this and continue to fall for this ongoing propaganda campaign exposes the reality that we are animals. We are possibly the most complex animal on Earth, but we are animals. We can be conditioned to believe almost anything, just like Pavlov’s salivating dogs were. Conditioning is learning. But learning is not always a positive thing. We can be taught the truth. We can also be taught the most vicious lies.

Notes

1. “20th Century Words”, John Ayto, Oxford Univeristy Press (December 2, 1999)

2. “Conspiracy Theory in America”, Lance deHaven-Smith, University of Texas Press (April 15, 2013)

3. JFK Lancer - President John F. Kennedy Assassination Latest News and Research

Top 5 Conspiracy Theories That Are True!

 
A minimum of one lie per day.

The No Conspiracy Theory Conspiracy
by Michael Fullerton

If you’ve ever wondered if there is something fundamentally wrong with mainstream skepticism, the mainstream media, and society in general, you only have to look at how the term “conspiracy theory” is used.

This phrase is composed of two terms which by themselves are neutral. The term “theory” in this context simply means a possible explanation. A conspiracy occurs whenever two or more people work together to achieve a nefarious goal.

Conspiracies then are ubiquitous in human society. A large portion of our legal system is devoted to conspiracy. Much human history likewise involves grand conspiracies. The Nazi Holocaust for example, is the idea that the Nazis secretly killed millions of Jewish people by gassing them en masse.

By putting the two word definitions together to make the phrase “conspiracy theory”, you simply have an explanation for an event that involved people working together to reach a nefarious end.

In fact, this is precisely the meaning that the phrase “conspiracy theory” referred to before 1963.[1] After 1963, the year of the JFK assassination, the term “conspiracy theory” came to denote a paranoid outlandish impossible belief that people in positions of great power conspired to do something malevolent.

All mainstream “skeptics” use the term “conspiracy theory” to reject outright any claims involving powerful people working together to do bad things. It is also used as a term of ridicule to denigrate a person instead of dealing with their arguments. In effect, the term then is what is referred to as a thought-terminating cliché. Such a device is used to quell cognitive dissonance or justify fallacious reasoning.

Indeed, look at what these “skeptics” are doing. They aren’t dealing with the arguments justifying a conspiracy. They are rejecting outright the argument simply because it involves a conspiracy. In order to reject outright any explanation involving a conspiracy, no conspiracies must ever have occurred.

In fact though, history is rife with conspiracies. Countless times psychopathic rulers have waged war on other nations for purely selfish reasons. They conspired to convince their subjects to put their lives on the line in order to benefit their leader. Since grand conspiracies do in fact happen, those who automatically reject any new potential conspiracies are clearly suffering from a serious delusion. They are rejecting evidence-based reality in order to maintain a comforting faith-based belief system.

Every current disparaging use of the term “conspiracy theory” is fallacious. Pronouncing that an argument is false simply because it involves a conspiracy is a bare assertion. Arguments should be evidence-based, not faith-based. Dismissively calling a person a “conspiracy theorist” instead of dealing with their argument is an ad hominem. The argument should be attacked, not the person making it. Claiming an argument involving a conspiracy is false because it hasn’t been proven true is an appeal to ignorance.

Because of this sophist use of the term “conspiracy theory”, every mainstream “skeptic” that uses the term disparagingly is misrepresenting himself as a critical thinker. In other words, they are all frauds.


How did this no-conspiracy delusion originate? Before the JFK assassination in 1963, the term “conspiracy theory” was neutral. It simply meant what it should mean: a proposed explanation involving a conspiracy. At this time the term wasn’t denoting a paranoid outlandish delusion that couldn’t possibly be true. Conspiracies are after all very commonplace. The entire history of human civilization is a history of conspiracies.

After the Warren Commission report was released amid an outcry of skeptics, the CIA with the help of powerful media interests, instituted a propaganda campaign to turn the term “conspiracy theory” into one of derision.[2] A crucial piece of evidence for this comes from CIA Document 1035-960: “Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report”. This document outlines a strategy of using propaganda techniques to neutralize critics of the Warren Report.[3] In effect, the report documents how to weaponize the term “conspiracy theory”. It details how to “employ propaganda assets” to discredit critics.

The fact that so many of us fell for this and continue to fall for this ongoing propaganda campaign exposes the reality that we are animals. We are possibly the most complex animal on Earth, but we are animals. We can be conditioned to believe almost anything, just like Pavlov’s salivating dogs were. Conditioning is learning. But learning is not always a positive thing. We can be taught the truth. We can also be taught the most vicious lies.

Notes

1. “20th Century Words”, John Ayto, Oxford Univeristy Press (December 2, 1999)

2. “Conspiracy Theory in America”, Lance deHaven-Smith, University of Texas Press (April 15, 2013)

3. JFK Lancer - President John F. Kennedy Assassination Latest News and Research

Top 5 Conspiracy Theories That Are True!



From your post, "Arguments should be evidence-based, not faith-based"

I have stated many times any explanation needs to stand on its own merits backed by the evidence.

So where is the one clear concise alternative explanation for 9/11? There are so many alternative explanations they all cannot be true.

What is lacking is for those who believe in any of the multiple explanations have yet provide the evidence. They play the what if game, or it could have been.
What we mostly see is statements the govt report is wrong, therefore it must have been X. The evidence to support X is lacking.

After 12+ years, no clear concise alternative explanation. I beleive the govt report does contain some technical errors. Yet the premise of hijack, crash, fire, collapse for the towers remains very possible and is backed by what is known. As is the Pentagon and Shanksville.
 
yet no mention of this site in the listed articles.

What if game being played. Your statement was specific to DP.
So what evidence do you have that some posters here are paid govt posters?

When was my "statement specific to DP"? Full in-context quote, please.

If it were legitimately revealed that paid debunkers are among us here, the company (or whoever) who was facilitating the infiltration would be changed, as you should already know, and someone else would take over. But yeah, there's no NYTimes article highlighting the fact that one of the few political message boards online has been infiltrated by people who aren't who they say they are, no, instead, we're told in broader terms I.e. social media.
 
Arguments should, indeed, be evidence-based, not faith-based. Well said, Bob.
 
When was my "statement specific to DP"? Full in-context quote, please.

If it were legitimately revealed that paid debunkers are among us here, the company (or whoever) who was facilitating the infiltration would be changed, as you should already know, and someone else would take over. But yeah, there's no NYTimes article highlighting the fact that one of the few political message boards online has been infiltrated by people who aren't who they say they are, no, instead, we're told in broader terms I.e. social media.

ok. I then mistook your statement to include DP.

Now you did't exclude DP ?
 
From your post, "Arguments should be evidence-based, not faith-based"

I have stated many times any explanation needs to stand on its own merits backed by the evidence.

So then why do you believe the official narrative is true and question none of it? The majority of 9/11 Commission told you it's based on lies and yet that doesn't mean anything to you.
 
Let's go back to the OP:

There, now its your turn.

Whenever you are ready.
 
So then why do you believe the official narrative is true and question none of it? The majority of 9/11 Commission told you it's based on lies and yet that doesn't mean anything to you.

What I Think Really Happened on 9/11/2001


Gonna give it a shot instead of sniveling about the "official narrative"?
 
So then why do you believe the official narrative is true and question none of it? The majority of 9/11 Commission told you it's based on lies and yet that doesn't mean anything to you.

Do you ever answer questions or all do you like to do is respond with more?
So why do you believe what you do Bob?

Where is the one clear consise alternative explanation?

I will say it one more time. imo the
the planes were hijacked
the towers fell do to crash damage/fire induced collapse (what failed first may never be known)
wtc7 fell do to damage from debris and fire induced collapse (what failed first may never be known)
pentagon was damaged to do crash and fire
shankville the plane crashed.

Why do you accept alternative explanations with less supporting evidence?

Unless your willing to lay out your position and why, instead of asking questions and not answering those posted to you , we don't have much to discuss.

I don't deal in one way converstations anymore.
 
So why do you believe what you do Bob?

How dense are you anyway? If the official story is admittedly based on lies, why should I believe it's true? Why do you? You haven't answered that question.

Where is the one clear consise alternative explanation?

The question should be where and what is the truth???

I will say it one more time. imo the
the planes were hijacked
the towers fell do to crash damage/fire induced collapse (what failed first may never be known)
wtc7 fell do to damage from debris and fire induced collapse (what failed first may never be known)
pentagon was damaged to do crash and fire
shankville the plane crashed.

Your opinion is just a regurgitation of the official narrative without question. Thanks for validating what I said.

Why do you accept alternative explanations with less supporting evidence?

The official story is based on lies so how are lies supporting evidence? I don't accept alternative explanations with "less supporting evidence" than the official narrative, where do you get this from?

Unless your willing to lay out your position and why, instead of asking questions and not answering those posted to you , we don't have much to discuss.

Ok then stop discussing it with me, no one is forcing you. I'm not interested in your nonsensical rules, apply them on yourself if they're important to you, they're worthless to me. Regardless, I've laid out my position countless times, including in this post, you just don't want to accept that I did.

I don't deal in one way converstations anymore.

Good for you.
 
How dense are you anyway? If the official story is admittedly based on lies, why should I believe it's true?
You have yet to prove those lies, errors are not lies, nor are they fraud. However every single truther attempt to shoot holes in "the official story" (which you avoid defining like the plague) is based solely and completely on lies. So why would you or anyone else even entertain their nonsense for 1 second?
 
You have yet to prove those lies, errors are not lies, nor are they fraud.

Why do I need to prove that the 9/11 Commissioners were lied to if they say they were lied to? A lie is not an error and publishing lies as if it is truth when it is a known lie is fraud, plain and simple. Nowhere in the 9/11 Commission Report does it say the report is based on lies. This was an admission after publication.

However every single truther attempt to shoot holes in "the official story" (which you avoid defining like the plague) is based solely and completely on lies.

"Truthers", whoever you think they are, don't need to "shoot holes" in the official story, it's based on lies because those who are responsible for publishing the official story claim it is, so they shot holes into it themselves long ago. You still don't have a clue what the official story is and claim I "avoid defining like the plague". Read post #24 in this thread, something I posted many times before.
 
What do you think really happened?


lol can't even answer simple questions.
 
Why do I need to prove that the 9/11 Commissioners were lied to if they say they were lied to? A lie is not an error and publishing lies as if it is truth when it is a known lie is fraud, plain and simple. Nowhere in the 9/11 Commission Report does it say the report is based on lies. This was an admission after publication.
If someone lied to the commission it does not mean the commission lied. Nor does it mean that the Ebil govt perpetrated 911.



"Truthers", whoever you think they are, don't need to "shoot holes" in the official story, it's based on lies because those who are responsible for publishing the official story claim it is, so they shot holes into it themselves long ago. You still don't have a clue what the official story is and claim I "avoid defining like the plague". Read post #24 in this thread, something I posted many times before.

No you refuse to get specific and will never ever state what you think "the official story" is never have never will.
As to truthers you don't even know what you are promoting? seriously you accuse me of defending a nebulous term you refuse to define and don't even know what lies ayou are promoting!!!
BOB YOU ARE A TRUTHER!!!!!!!
You accept truther lies even after they have shown to be lies.
That is what a truther is!!!!!!!!

No planers are truthers! CD proponents are truthers! anyone who think the govt perpetrated 911 is a truther!
Anyone who ignores the facts and evidence and believes nonsense without any evidence is a truther!

BOB YOU ARE A TRUTHER!
 
Back
Top Bottom