ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags ex-truther

Reply
Old 22nd December 2008, 09:51 AM   #81
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,792
Originally Posted by Seymour Butz View Post
One thing that I find most interesting is that nearly all of the "confessions" indicate that they were in their mid-teens when they were exposed to the bs and "bought" the troofer crap.

I'm 46, and I can remember the first time I watched LC, about 3 yrs ago. It took all of about 5 minutes to start picking out flaws in their so called "ANALysis".

I guess it takes an immature and/or inexperienced person to believe in this junk in the first place. Cuz anyone with any life experience could pick out the errors in the troofer crap right off the bat. Plus, life experience will tell you when you're being exposed to propaganda, and youngsters don't have what it takes to do this.

Just my .02.....
From my own experience, I don't recall hearing anything about the conspiracy theories until about last year, and by that point I was well into my architecture education (I was just starting it when 9/11 happened since the high school I went to is design oriented). That is why I say "I might have gone into it" if I hadn't started my education in design around that time. I wasn't significantly familiar with the engineering aspects but the collapse of the towers in of them selves wasn't much of a surprise to me either, I think I had the gist of it.

Understanding the subject before hearing the CT was key for me
__________________
Grizzly Bear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2008, 01:17 PM   #82
~enigma~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
Originally Posted by Seymour Butz View Post
I guess it takes an immature and/or inexperienced person to believe in this junk in the first place. Cuz anyone with any life experience could pick out the errors in the troofer crap right off the bat.
Not true at all. Well, let me clarifty that. MIHOP and particularly the flavor in Loose Change (all versions) is junk and can be seen through in minutes by anyone provided they have a functioning intellect. LIHOP on the other hand is more "convincing" at first and perhaps second glance but ultimately it is just as stupid as MIHOP.
~enigma~ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2008, 02:26 PM   #83
Seymour Butz
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 881
Originally Posted by ~enigma~ View Post
Not true at all. Well, let me clarifty that. MIHOP and particularly the flavor in Loose Change (all versions) is junk and can be seen through in minutes by anyone provided they have a functioning intellect. LIHOP on the other hand is more "convincing" at first and perhaps second glance but ultimately it is just as stupid as MIHOP.
And what I'm saying is that a more mature person WOULDN'T find LIHOP more "convincing". I found it equally preposterous, just as quickly as the MIHOP arguments.

It just depends on the degree of experience at picking out the bs. When you're young, you don't have what it takes.
Seymour Butz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2008, 03:12 PM   #84
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,032
Originally Posted by Seymour Butz View Post
And what I'm saying is that a more mature person WOULDN'T find LIHOP more "convincing". I found it equally preposterous, just as quickly as the MIHOP arguments.

It just depends on the degree of experience at picking out the bs. When you're young, you don't have what it takes.

True, But not just because they lack life experience. Its also because they lack the physiological brain development needed to process the information rationally.

read it and weep adolescents
http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/Adolescence.pdf

Quote:

Along with everything else in the body, the brain changes
significantly during adolescence. In the last five years, scientists,
using new technologies, have discovered that adolescent brains
are far less developed than previously believed
Quote:

Researchers have carefully scrutinized the pace and severity
of these changes and have learned that they continue into a personís
early 20s. Dr. Elizabeth Sowell, a member of the UCLA
brain research team, has led studies of brain development from
adolescence to adulthood. She and her colleagues found that the
frontal lobe undergoes far more change during adolescence than
at any other stage of life.
4 It is also the last part of the brain to
develop, which means that even as they become fully capable in
other areas, adolescents cannot reason as well as adults: ď[m]aturation,
particularly in the frontal lobes, has been shown to correlate

with measures of cognitive functioning.Ē
5
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Donít get me lolín off my chesterfield dude.
A W Smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2008, 03:26 PM   #85
zaphod2016
Graduate Poster
 
zaphod2016's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,039
Originally Posted by dtugg View Post
All the steel was thoughtfully examined by experts. Nobody saw any signs of explosives.
Was all the steel tested? The word "all" raises a red flag to me. I would assume some steel was removed rather hastily, being that victims were still being recovered in the days following the attack.

Quote:
The steel was sold for scrap. Some of it was even used to build a US Navy ship. What did you expect them to do with it? Hold half a million tons of steel forever just so paranoid people could examine it if they doubted the official story?
My point exactly: did they test half a million tons of steel in 6 weeks? That sounds implausible to me. I assume they tested a sample area, and extrapolated based on that. And I have no problem with recycling the steel, I just wonder if there was adequate time to test all of it, considering the frantic search for survivors in the first week.

I'm sure it has been discussed thoroughly elsewhere, so I will do some googling and stop derailing this thread. If someone has a good link handy, I would appreciate it.

Originally Posted by dtugg
You accidentally had a multi-tool, so what? Do you really think that the passengers and crew would have let you hijack the plane?
The 19 hijackers did it with box cutters. Isn't it possible a plane could be hijacked with a multitool (3" blade)? There have been several hijackings following 9-11, despite increased security worldwide. Thankfully, none of the occured in America, but to suggest that it couldn't happen again is a matter of opinion- once it happens, you have been proven wrong, and so long as it doesn't happen, I can argue that it always could.

Originally Posted by ~enigma~
ETA - If something, anything, can't be falsified it is not in the realm of science but faith. If there is no evidence for something, believing in it is a matter of faith.
I agree with this 100%. And that is why some people remain "agnostic" about 9-11. For example: "the government let it happen" or "the government would never let this happen" are both statements of faith. Neither can really be falsified, because at this point you are debating politics, and not a specific scientific fact, like the melting point of steel, or the amplitude of explosives.

If someone argues that they "don't trust the government", I'm not sure you can really do much to prove them wrong. The government has done some lousy things. Likewise, the government has also done some awesome things, so I can understand why people hold the opposite opinion. But in both cases, these are opinions. And although these prejudices may make someone more likely to believe a conspiracy theory (like me), arguing opinions with absolute certainty just comes across as raving lunacy.

EDIT: It seems that hearing or not hearing a bomb is not the best form of evidence

Here is a post by Gravy which discusses the testing for explosives. dtugg and I were both mistaken about a few key points, which are covered in detail here

Quote from the first link, very relevant to this thread:

Quote:
9/11 conspiracists desperately try to force reality to fit their beliefs. Rational people know that won't work. Conspiracists don't care. Their goal is to perpetuate the conspiracy theory, not to find the truth.
Being that my goal is truth, not perpetuating misinformation, I will no longer refer to myself as a "skeptical conspiracy theorist" here on JREF.

Last edited by zaphod2016; 22nd December 2008 at 03:52 PM.
zaphod2016 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2008, 04:59 PM   #86
Seymour Butz
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 881
Originally Posted by A W Smith View Post
True, But not just because they lack life experience. Its also because they lack the physiological brain development needed to process the information rationally.

read it and weep adolescents
http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/Adolescence.pdf
That's a little more technical than what I was thinking, but I'm ok with this too...
Seymour Butz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2008, 11:21 PM   #87
ref
Master Poster
 
ref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,685
I have to disagree with Seymour, A.W., and Enigma.

Just because you guys didn't buy into any or most of the stuff, doesn't mean that anyone who did was immature, adolescent or had no life experience. Or didn't have developed enough brains to process information.

I think it's sad to mock people that way. Do you mock every person who believes in resurrection? Any religion? Anything?

I'd say believing in CT is mostly about inexperience in how CT's work, combined with little initial understanding about the topics at hand. No matter the age or any other variable. I wrote about this in the other thread. I bet you guys believe something I would call immature or total crap as well.

Just my morning thoughts.
__________________
9/11 Guide homepage

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit. - Chief Daniel Nigro
ref is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2008, 11:48 PM   #88
Baylor
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 6,899
Secret shadow governments trying to pass off a controlled demolition as a fire-induced progressive collapse. A Tomahawk missile striking the military headquarters in broad daylight. Remote controlled military jets with the paint scheme of commercial airliners. So that's "what really happened."

I called BS the second I heard these nutty theories, and was embarrassed for (and mad at) those dumb enough to buy into this garbage. Sorry, I'm with AW, seymour, and enigma.

For a thorough examination of how these "theories" spread, read this article.

Last edited by Baylor; 22nd December 2008 at 11:50 PM.
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2008, 11:56 PM   #89
zaphod2016
Graduate Poster
 
zaphod2016's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,039
Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel View Post
Tomahawk missile striking the military headquarters in broad daylight. Remote controlled military jets with the paint scheme of commercial airliners. So that's "what really happened."

I called BS the second I heard these nutty theories, and was embarrassed for (and mad at) those dumb enough to buy into this garbage.
I called BS on those theories too; however, I fell for the 'ole LIHOP theory, which I think is far more plausible.

Would you agree that CTs have varying degrees of plausibility, or are we equally dumb, regardless of which theory we believed?
zaphod2016 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2008, 12:17 AM   #90
Baylor
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 6,899
I read The Looming Tower, I read (some of) Against All Enemies, and countless other articles and found no evidence to support the LIHOP theory. The Hindsight bias works in mysterious ways.

Quote:
Would you agree that CTs have varying degrees of plausibility, or are we equally dumb, regardless of which theory we believed?
I wouldn't call any of them "plausible" but even I have to admit there are different levels of stupidity among the MIHOPers. Actually, I'm writing a post on this very topic. I'm going to put it in the newly bumped "pentagon theories" thread.
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2008, 12:17 AM   #91
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,576
Originally Posted by zaphod2016 View Post
Would you agree that CTs have varying degrees of plausibility, or are we equally dumb, regardless of which theory we believed?

I agree they have varying degrees of plausibility, but they all seem to share the same amount of evidence.
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2008, 12:22 AM   #92
ref
Master Poster
 
ref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,685
Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel View Post
Secret shadow governments trying to pass off a controlled demolition as a fire-induced progressive collapse. A Tomahawk missile striking the military headquarters in broad daylight. Remote controlled military jets with the paint scheme of commercial airliners. So that's "what really happened."
Sounds crazy to most of the people. Sounds embarrassing to those, who once maybe believed some of those.


Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel View Post
I called BS the second I heard these nutty theories, and was embarrassed for (and mad at) those dumb enough to buy into this garbage. Sorry, I'm with AW, seymour, and enigma.
You called BS, does that mean everybody who didn't is a jerk? The second after being exposed to these theories for the first time, I considered the possibility of a demolition. Afterwards I can see how stupid that was, but back then I didn't, until all the evidence proved otherwise. Am I dumb?


Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel View Post
For a thorough examination of how these "theories" spread, read this article.
A decent article, but I don't know if that's a thorough examination of how theories spread. What about people like Dan, and many others, who thought the truth unveiled before their eyes, as they were watching countless CT movies by themselves? Or those who find CT links while googling, thinking they are after something major, all by themselves? The internet exploded these theories.
__________________
9/11 Guide homepage

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit. - Chief Daniel Nigro

Last edited by ref; 23rd December 2008 at 12:23 AM.
ref is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2008, 12:31 AM   #93
Baylor
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by ref View Post
You called BS, does that mean everybody who didn't is a jerk? The second after being exposed to these theories for the first time, I considered the possibility of a demolition? Afterwards I can see how stupid that was, but back then I didn't, until all the evidence proved otherwise. Am I dumb?
I don't think you're dumb. I'm from Las Vegas, so I've seen several casinos get demolished live, most of them in the '90s. The news channels used to have a segment on how it was done. And the first thing you learn is: it's no easy task. It's extremely dangerous, extremely time-consuming. The room for error is extremely small. I'm no demo "expert" but I know a controlled demolition when I see one. Maybe I was less susceptible to these theories because I learned (however small amount) about controlled demolitions at a young age. And I wish people would be more circumspect and have more respect to those who died before telling me "what really happened."

See this, I saw this live. I think I was in 5th grade.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

Last edited by Baylor; 23rd December 2008 at 12:37 AM.
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2008, 12:44 AM   #94
ref
Master Poster
 
ref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,685
Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel View Post
I don't think you're dumb. I'm from Las Vegas, so I've seen several casinos get demolished live, most of them in the '90s. The news channels used to have a segment on how it was done. And the first thing you learn is: it's no easy task. It's extremely dangerous, extremely time-consuming. The room for error is extremely small. I'm no demo "expert" but I know a controlled demolition when I see one. Maybe I was less susceptible to these theories because I learned (however small amount) about controlled demolitions at a young age. And I wish people would be more circumspect and have more respect to those who died before telling me "what really happened."

See this, I saw this live. I think I was in 5th grade.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
Ok, good that we cleared that up.

I had no experience about demolitions, whatsoever. Zero. Zilch. I had no idea how they worked or what was required. Demolitions are rare in Finland

So I bought into many of the demolition "anomalies" so to speak. Until I learnt more.

I didn't consider myself disrespectful at the time. It was all about the evidence, you know. Which soon proved I was wrong about the demo

I'm glad I took time to learn more about this subject, and learn at all about CTs. I've learnt a lot since then.

My comment was just criticizing all those, who think that everybody who bought any of that stuff must be a stupid no-brain-having immature idiot. It's not all that simple.
__________________
9/11 Guide homepage

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit. - Chief Daniel Nigro

Last edited by ref; 23rd December 2008 at 12:45 AM.
ref is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2008, 06:55 AM   #95
~enigma~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
Originally Posted by ref View Post
I have to disagree with Seymour, A.W., and Enigma.
Enigma never said no such thing, if I gave you the impression I felt that way please show me what I said. Please don't lump me in with Seymor's view, apparently he has blinders on.
~enigma~ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2008, 06:58 AM   #96
~enigma~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel View Post
Sorry, I'm with AW, seymour, and enigma.
You mean you're with AW and Seymor. Enigma never said such a thing which you would understand had you read his posts. You are basing your use of my name on what Ref said not on anything i wrote.

Last edited by ~enigma~; 23rd December 2008 at 07:00 AM.
~enigma~ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2008, 07:28 AM   #97
ref
Master Poster
 
ref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,685
Originally Posted by ~enigma~ View Post
Enigma never said no such thing, if I gave you the impression I felt that way please show me what I said. Please don't lump me in with Seymor's view, apparently he has blinders on.
Ok. I meant this quote:

MIHOP and particularly the flavor in Loose Change (all versions) is junk and can be seen through in minutes by anyone provided they have a functioning intellect.

I thought this implies that me, and anyone who considered demolition (which would be MIHOP) when first exposed to these theories, don't have a functioning intellect. Correct me if I misunderstood. Maybe I was just crumpy in the morning.
__________________
9/11 Guide homepage

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit. - Chief Daniel Nigro
ref is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2008, 07:31 AM   #98
~enigma~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
Originally Posted by ref View Post
Ok. I meant this quote:

MIHOP and particularly the flavor in Loose Change (all versions) is junk and can be seen through in minutes by anyone provided they have a functioning intellect.

I thought this implies that me, and anyone who considered demolition (which would be MIHOP) when first exposed to these theories, don't have a functioning intellect. Correct me if I misunderstood. Maybe I was just crumpy in the morning.
No it implies (and has been said in following posts) that truthers who are still truthers are sub-human. AW and Seymor are both chalking it up to their being young and not having life experience. Nonetheless I thank you for totally turning what I said upside down and having some posters attributing a false position to me. Merry Xmas to you also...
~enigma~ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2008, 07:44 AM   #99
ref
Master Poster
 
ref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,685
Originally Posted by ~enigma~ View Post
No it implies (and has been said in following posts) that truthers who are still truthers are sub-human. AW and Seymor are both chalking it up to their being young and not having life experience. Nonetheless I thank you for totally turning what I said upside down and having some posters attributing a false position to me. Merry Xmas to you also...
I'm sorry if you feel you have been mistreated. Now your position is corrected. If someone attributed a false position to enigma, please see the clearance above.

I would have follow-up questions but let's leave it at this.

Merry Christmas everyone.
__________________
9/11 Guide homepage

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit. - Chief Daniel Nigro
ref is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2008, 02:27 PM   #100
Baylor
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by ~enigma~ View Post
You mean you're with AW and Seymor. Enigma never said such a thing which you would understand had you read his posts. You are basing your use of my name on what Ref said not on anything i wrote.
I understood it fine. I base my use of your name on what you said. Try remembering what you post.
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2008, 02:36 PM   #101
Seymour Butz
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 881
Originally Posted by ref View Post

1-I have to disagree with Seymour.

2-Just because you guys didn't buy into any or most of the stuff, doesn't mean that anyone who did was immature, adolescent or had no life experience.

3-Or didn't have developed enough brains to process information.

4-I think it's sad to mock people that way.

5-Do you mock every person who believes in resurrection? Any religion?

6-Anything?

7-I'd say believing in CT is mostly about inexperience in how CT's work, combined with little initial understanding about the topics at hand. No matter the age or any other variable.

8-I wrote about this in the other thread.

9-I bet you guys believe something I would call immature or total crap as well.

Just my morning thoughts.
1- hey, good for you

2-you're right, it doesn't MEAN that. But believing in it is a pretty indication that this MIGHT be true.

3-this isn't an insult to anyone. Similarly, someone suffering from the type of depression that can be helped by meds shouldn't take that badly either. It's a medical condition.

4- when they're kids, absolutely. Adults - gloves are off.

5-nope. Their beliefs are theirs.

6-uhhh, yeah dude. Troofers.

7-I (think) I said mostly youngsters. If someone is older, and hasn't been exposed to much, then their life experiences are deficient, as you say, in the areas that are relevant. At any rate, I was commenting on those that wrote about their "conversion" to reality.

8- don't remember

9- I don't have any corny beliefs, so I doubt it

10 good morning to you also
Seymour Butz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2008, 02:46 PM   #102
Seymour Butz
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 881
Originally Posted by zaphod2016 View Post

1-I fell for the 'ole LIHOP theory, which I think is far more plausible.

2-Would you agree that CTs have varying degrees of plausibility, or are we equally dumb, regardless of which theory we believed?

1- not really. It would depend on the whole NWO theory being true, according to how most LIHOP theories are laid out. And a simple analysis of human nature says that no group of such a large and necessarily diverse people can get along indefinitely.

2- varying? Sure, depending on the craziness behind it. Wouldn't you agree that Judy Woods and John lear's theories are more nuts many others? You can pick a particular piece of 9/11 theories - like remote controlled planes - and say ok, this sounds like it might hold water.... that is, until you get some facts about it. But the problem with that is it depends on soooo many other nutty pieces to make it happen, and so as a whole, it becomes unsustainable.
Seymour Butz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2008, 02:48 PM   #103
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 23,819
Your responses to points 4+5 are contradictory, unless you believe there is verifiable evidence for resurrection etc.
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2008, 02:50 PM   #104
Seymour Butz
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 881
[quote=ref;4290849]

1-You called BS, does that mean everybody who didn't is a jerk?

2-Afterwards I can see how stupid that was, but back then I didn't, until all the evidence proved otherwise. Am I dumb?

QUOTE]

1-nice strawman. he didn't say that.

2-you were dumb (iow, inexperienced) about the topics at hand.
Seymour Butz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2008, 02:54 PM   #105
Seymour Butz
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 881
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Your responses to points 4+5 are contradictory, unless you believe there is verifiable evidence for resurrection etc.
pt 4 would be referring to 9/11 CTerz only. I wouldn't mock some kid, but adults, the gloves are off.

pt 5 is for the religious only, in which case I wouldn't mock anyone, since IMHO, there's no evidence either way, and so I shouldn't take a stand.
Seymour Butz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2008, 03:03 PM   #106
Seymour Butz
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 881
Originally Posted by ~enigma~ View Post

Please don't lump me in with Seymor's view, apparently he has blinders on.
And this is exactly how stupid arguments get started.

Just because I say that at the time someone believed in the whole 9/11 CT, that they were lacking experience...... people take it as saying that I believe they were stupid. I'm not. Just inexperienced.

That being said, it's more than just a little hypocritical for an ex-troofer to get all worked up about this, and then go mock troofers, when they hold the very beliefs that an ex-troofer once held.

I don't know your particular story, so don't think I'm referring to you.
Seymour Butz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2008, 03:04 PM   #107
~enigma~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel View Post
I understood it fine. I base my use of your name on what you said. Try remembering what you post.
Try reading my posts. I have no idea what your problem is but I don't share the same idea as AW and Seymor but since you are stubborn enough to insist I do, you are going on my ignore list that only has a few anti-semitic morons and then only self proclaimed debunkers.
~enigma~ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2008, 03:09 PM   #108
Seymour Butz
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 881
Originally Posted by ~enigma~ View Post
No it implies (and has been said in following posts) that truthers who are still truthers are sub-human. AW and Seymor are both chalking it up to their being young and not having life experience. Nonetheless I thank you for totally turning what I said upside down and having some posters attributing a false position to me. Merry Xmas to you also...
LOL, this is rich.....

I have blinders on because I stated that those that believed in 9/11 CT's - as opposed to those that don't really believe, but are profiting from it, either financially or politically - are inexperienced?

But your statement that they're subhuman is perfectly logical and all encompassing of all factors?
Seymour Butz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2008, 03:15 PM   #109
~enigma~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
Originally Posted by Seymour Butz View Post
LOL, this is rich.....

I have blinders on because I stated that those that believed in 9/11 CT's - as opposed to those that don't really believe, but are profiting from it, either financially or politically - are inexperienced?

But your statement that they're subhuman is perfectly logical and all encompassing of all factors?
I am not making excuse for truthers but you are. Some people call truthers apologists for terrorists so what I said is you have blinders on while it could have been saying you were an apologist for terrorist apologists.
~enigma~ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2008, 03:15 PM   #110
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,792
Originally Posted by Seymour Butz View Post
And this is exactly how stupid arguments get started.

Just because I say that at the time someone believed in the whole 9/11 CT, that they were lacking experience...... people take it as saying that I believe they were stupid. I'm not. Just inexperienced.
I know I'm jumping into a tiger's pit but I have something to add which is hopefully a little more, how should I say? Productive?

All I'll say is you probably could have worded it better the first time. I'm not a big fan of arguing little semantics like that however, so I'll leave it at that, you seem to have cleared up the confusion I had already, so I'm not concerned with it at this point.

The only thing I have to add is that whether someone buys into the conspiracy theories is not only a matter of familiarity with the subjects at hand, it was a major contributor to my current position. Views on politics have their own contributions, others just follow it intentionally; I think you know where I'm going with this. If the participation isn't intentional then usually it's a combination effect of the person's biases along side their lack of objectivity in politics and lack of familiarity with the topics that have to be known in order to discuss them. Age may play a factor to some degree, but from my personal experience being 14 when this happened it was the study of the subjects that led me to my standing with the conclusions reached.

Again, I think you know where I'm heading with this... hopefully
__________________

Last edited by Grizzly Bear; 23rd December 2008 at 03:18 PM.
Grizzly Bear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2008, 03:22 PM   #111
Baylor
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by ~enigma~ View Post
Try reading my posts. I have no idea what your problem is but I don't share the same idea as AW and Seymor.
Sounds like you do....
Quote:
SeymourI'm 46, and I can remember the first time I watched LC, about 3 yrs ago. It took all of about 5 minutes to start picking out flaws in their so called "ANALysis".
Quote:
enigmaThey don't understand that asking questions and snide remarks are proof of nothing.
Quote:
enigma Well, let me clarifty that. MIHOP and particularly the flavor in Loose Change (all versions) is junk and can be seen through in minutes by anyone provided they have a functioning intellect
Sure, blame others' interpretations of your posts on another poster. Are you sure you're not a truther?

Last edited by Baylor; 23rd December 2008 at 03:32 PM.
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2008, 03:26 PM   #112
Baylor
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by ~enigma~ View Post
No it implies (and has been said in following posts) that truthers who are still truthers are sub-human. AW and Seymor are both chalking it up to their being young and not having life experience. Nonetheless I thank you for totally turning what I said upside down and having some posters attributing a false position to me. Merry Xmas to you also...
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that there are kids being exposed to this for the first time and that there are babies being born everyday who will one day be exposed to these conspiracy theories. What's the human/sub-human barrier for those truthers?
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2008, 03:29 PM   #113
Seymour Butz
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 881
Originally Posted by ~enigma~ View Post
I am not making excuse for truthers but you are. Some people call truthers apologists for terrorists so what I said is you have blinders on while it could have been saying you were an apologist for terrorist apologists.
LOL.

I went back and read your posts in this thread. You take an extreme view, and I'm fine with that.

ETA: I thought about this some more and I see where you're coming from now. My OP was in response to the original post - ex-truthers and such. My points only apply to those that listen to facts and admit their error. Your point of view is that those that reject facts are sub-human. While a little over the top - LOL - I have no problem with you feeling that way.

Last edited by Seymour Butz; 23rd December 2008 at 04:03 PM.
Seymour Butz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2008, 03:31 PM   #114
Seymour Butz
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 881
Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear View Post

If the participation isn't intentional then usually it's a combination effect of the person's biases along side their lack of objectivity in politics and lack of familiarity with the topics that have to be known in order to discuss them. Age may play a factor to some degree, but from my personal experience being 14 when this happened it was the study of the subjects that led me to my standing with the conclusions reached.

Again, I think you know where I'm heading with this... hopefully
Bingo!
Seymour Butz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2008, 03:52 PM   #115
chillzero
Penultimate Amazing
 
chillzero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 15,539
Mod WarningStop bickering, and get back on topic, please.
Posted By:chillzero
chillzero is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2008, 04:52 PM   #116
fullflavormenthol
Master Poster
 
fullflavormenthol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,415
I was moving towards 9-11 truth, and would watch videos and frequent the websites and such. Then I saw Zeitgeist, and the problem with that was I used to be a religious studies major and I was poking holes in part 1 while watching it. Well as part 2 and 3 came around I was already in a critical mindset. I ignored that for awhile, and then got into an argument about part 1 and ended up here; and well I ended up on Gravy's site and I realized that there were highly logical answers for all those questions.

So it was a truth movie that actually led me to leave the truth movement.
__________________
"Burning people! He says what we're all thinking!" -GLaDOS
fullflavormenthol is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2008, 07:33 PM   #117
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,546
It's absolutely untrue that anyone who fell for the videos is biased, or immature, or dumb, just because they fell for it. That's like saying people who got duped by a mechanics are gullable for not knowing how to fix a car themselves. If someone presents a video that says something along the lines of "there was no plane debris t the pentagon" and shows a bunch o pictures that appear to show there being no wreckage, then it's understandable that someone might look at that and say "hey, they're right". They may not have any knowledge of the other pictures that DO show debris. If the video claims the building fell free fall, then someone might not have the data that shows it wasn't free fall.
Jonnyclueless is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2008, 08:13 PM   #118
Seymour Butz
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 881
[quote=Jonnyclueless;4293169]

That's like saying people who got duped by a mechanics are gullable for not knowing how to fix a car themselves.

QUOTE]

So what are they then? Inexperienced with the subject matter?

And so, those that fell for the junk on LC ?

Also, these claims of the NWO isn't new either. There's been crazy talk about the UN taking over the US, etc since the 70's. And I've been through that and have seen the same arguments before. And so, I have experience with it, and wasn't swayed by the same sounding arguments.
Seymour Butz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2008, 09:51 PM   #119
zaphod2016
Graduate Poster
 
zaphod2016's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,039
Originally Posted by ~enigma~ View Post
No it implies (and has been said in following posts) that truthers who are still truthers are sub-human.
Tell us what you really think.

Originally Posted by ~enigma~ View Post
Merry Xmas to you also...
And God Bless us, everyone.

Originally Posted by Seymour Butz View Post
1- not really. It would depend on the whole NWO theory being true, according to how most LIHOP theories are laid out.
I agree that the bulk (99%) of LIHOP theories are based on the all-encompassing NWO conspiracies, but in terms of pure plausibility, I would assume a small population within our intellegence community could (purely hypothetically) have LIHOP, without belonging to any larger conspiracy.

Why would they? One possible motive: job security.

Clarity: I am not defending LIHOP, simply explaining why I feel it is more plausible.
zaphod2016 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2008, 09:57 PM   #120
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,918
You know, if they just said, "the Bush administration allowed 9-11 happen in order to get broad public support for the Patriot Act and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, which made huge profits for arms and energy industries that were friendly with them"..the whole 9-11 truth thing would be soo much more popular and not seem so damn wacky.

Yes, LIHOP is 500 times more plausible and much easier to convince the average Joe of.

Hell, even I still have some thoughts about a few elements of the LIHOP theories.

But alas, wacky people cling to wacky ideas. MIHOP prevailed because it is much...much..wackier..insane..and implausible.

Last edited by Thunder; 23rd December 2008 at 09:59 PM.
Thunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:38 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.