There are a number of 'resident' debunkers here who regularly trawl through this conspiracy forum shooting down every conspiracy theory that's posted and often, in the process, insulting the intelligence of the poster. My question is aimed at them.

It is your view that your government or its agencies has never been involved in a conspiracy, let's say in modern times. If the answer is, "no, I accept there have been conspiracies", then which ones specifically do you believe in.

I believe in the conspiracies that have evidence that points in a logical and unbiased manner to the conclusion. Of course, when i say believe, what I mean is that I am willing to say that the conclusion is quite likely correct, given the amount of credibility the evidence and conclusion has.

Because of that, I tend to consider such things as the Tuskegee Syphilis experiments to be plausible. There is evidence that directly links specific people to their specific roles in the actions. There is very little leap of the imagination required to fill in the gaps, and what there is can be done by an unbiased third-party. This is in comparison to extremely large leaps required, such as the current trend of showing such things as a document saying that the U.S. could profit from a false flag attack and then using that as absolute evidence that the government (and unspecific entity) must be responsible for 9/11 (an unspecific act).

I do not believe conspiracy theories that begin with an opening volley decrying the currently held viewpoint as absolutely idiotic, and anyone who believes it must be nothing more than mindless sheep. For instance, claiming that the NIST report has certain invalid points is one thing. To claim that the entire thing is a crock of garbage leads one to wonder how 140,000 engineers, architects, and material science professionals and students the world over looked over the thing and didn't find anything out of the ordinary. The NIST report may have holes, it may even be incorrect (if future evidence appears that indicates this), however to claim that it is absolutely wrong in every way shape and form re-quires one to make that incredible leap again, that the accuser somehow is able to see something that 140,000 other experts missed.

It isn't the claims that cause a skeptic to sigh in frustration at the claims conspiracy theorists make; it is the sloppy manner in which the presentations are made that make the claims lose credibility.

Can you cite statements from those 140,000 people showing that every single one agrees with you?

Seems kind of crazy for someone to make such a wildly unsupported over-generalisation about the opinions of others when you can cite no surveys, no statements from them all, or even cite a number of NAMED EXPERTS (with their statements supporting what you claim) that is greater than the number of NAMED EXPERTS (with supporting statements) on the 9/11 Truth Movement side of the fence.

Typical OCTer use of logical fallacy on your side.



I don't believe that they all did. Not at all. Actually, I suspect the great majority haven't even read the NIST report in it's entirety.

You're making a wild claim without any support at all about the opinions of thousands of experts WITHOUT A SINGLE SCRAP OF EVIDENCE TO BACK YOUR CLAIM


.

Why would i need to? Do you understand the point of the argument? It isn't about NIST, or 9/11, or even syphillis.



If I were actually arguing the conspiracy, I would be citing surveys, statements, experts, or whatever else I was speaking about. I am not, however, arguing conspiracies. I am talking about the topic or this thread, which is about why one would believe one theory over another.



Do you understand the purpose of a scientific journal?



That is incorrect. I am not making any claims. This is nothing more than an opinion piece. If you wish to continue this alone the lines of this topic, meaning the reasonings and purposes of conspiracies in general, then I will be happy to do so, but I will not be dragged into another useless conspiracy argument.

"Only you are a conspiracy" is what i always say to people who say 'things'. It's not bad nor good, it's just that we want to know the truth. And you must have a balance of lies and truth so we have something to live on with. It's the way the world works....secrets are kept quiet by a larger group or one person and then theres an individual who feels its wrong and speaks out...then we have to see the facts to see if that one whose arguing is actually right! If not the other person(s) wins...so basically there is no conspiracy....only you are a conspiracy!

No, what is INCORRECT is that you are in reality making CLAIMS, and you are not supporting them.




.

So, in keeping with the topic of what makes a conspiracy credible, here is another red flag that skeptics run into frequently.



When a person makes an unusual or incredible claim, then of course it is incumbent to provide evidence for that claim. What skeptics do, then, is ask for evidence of that claim, and consider it for validity. The basic idea is that one is open-minded enough to consider the claim as possible until the evidence, or lack thereof, points the way to a conclusion.

But what is often overlooked is that the evidence provided for a claim must be of equal value to the claim. What happens, then, when people demand evidence that is so far beyond reasonable that it becomes impossible?

That is a red flag. That indicates that the person who is asking for the evidence is really not interested in the evidence, but rather wants to shut the person up by reacting in an over-the-top manner and hoping to overwhelm the respondent. It is as if the person is arguing on volume rather than reason.

So, what would be a credible response? What would be the approach that would cause a skeptic to think that maybe the person is a reasonable researcher, as opposed to the basic stereotype that is generally applied to conspiracy theorists? The proper response is to examine the source of the claim.

"This person has made an incredible claim! How did that person decided to make such a claim?"

By employing this line of thought, one can then create an appropriate request. An appropriate request is one that asks for a level of evidence appropriate to the claim made. To demand a ridiculous level such as the above "Produce a claim from every single person" is disingenous at best, outright idiotic at worst; disingenous because the question is a Bait-and-Switch (I never said that 140,000 experts agreed with me), idiotic because if one truly believes that such a thing is possible, one shouldn't be debating in the first place.

So, keeping the above question mind, one instead makes the perfectly valid request "You said 140,000 experts disagree. What led you to that conclusion?"

At that point, the person who spoke is in the position of either having to put up or shut up (granted, this isn't really the way things work on this board, but anyway...). I, after receiving such a challenge from someone, would not be able to dismiss, and would have to explain the reasoning behind such a claim.

Is there a reason why I said, and maintain, that claiming that the report is wrong when 140,000 experts consider it valid flags the claimant as losing credibility? Yes, there is, and I would be happy to explain. What I will not do, however, is engage in yet another silly debate concerning specific conspiracy theories. The spirit of this thread is why one theory is more valid than another, and that is the topic I will discuss.

Now, that is.. imo excellent reasoning.

To start with, aquatus1, you are doing a fine job, and even attempting to be on target and in line with the original post. Bravo.

I will, however, argue that you do make a claim that there are 140k people of some training and experience that have weighed in on the findings, and I believe that is a bit of an exaggeration. A valid point - but clouded by the exaggeration nonetheless. Perhaps more accurately (and to keep some folks from having their heads explode when you say it!!), you could say that "There are a very large number of experts, students and others that have evaluated the evidence and have found no fault in the findings. The number of those who say that the findings are in gross error or are fabricated is so small as to be statistically insignificant." That ought to hold them off.


This question is loaded at its base. You want us to either say that there has NEVER been any flavor of conspiracy, or that there has been and which to we believe. The mere suggestion that some might think there has never been an effort to provide disinformation to the public is both outrageous and insults the intelligence of many if not all of the skeptics on this board.

Of course there have been conspiracies. Many of them, CT'ers never even bother with.

The conspiracy of the landing on D-Day. The governments of SEVERAL nations colluded to provide disinformation to keep the enemy offguard (or at least guarding the wrong areas!!). Where is the CT hue and cry about that?!?!

The conspiracy of the Tuskegee Airmen. The whites in power bowed to political pressure and set up an all Black unit - to prove that Blacks couldn't do what was necessary to be fighter pilots. What's the worst thing that could happen? The new unit might prove its worth and we have another good military air-power unit! Well, thanks to the drive and patience (and honor) of these pilots, the Powers That Be were proven wrong, and the they lost their chance to jump up and down to say, "See, Blacks are incapable!!" Good for the pilots, and good for the US. Where is the CT'ers screaming about that one?

I personally have my doubts about JFK's death. I am a trained marksman (much better trained than Oswald), and would have to have all the stars aligned, hit the lottery AND get a date with the Virgin Mary herself to make the shots he did... so I doubt. A conspiracy? Perhaps. The people behind the scenes involved? A possible conspiracy.

Most everything else that I read on here I put down to individuals that just make poor decisions. September Eleventh? I watched the truth on TV - and have lived the aftermath. The moonwalk? I watched it, I've visited Canaveral, and there ain't no conspiracy there. Most of the things discussed on here are just WAY too elaborate to be anything close to successful conspiracies, especially in 2007/2008. People have grown HUGE mouths in the last couple decades, and there is no way that the "secrets" would remain secret for long.
___________________________

I have a volley question for you: What do you do, President Coughy Machine, if you run into a situation that may well destroy America as a nation... unless an elaborate lie is told to the public? I've noticed that there are MANY fewer CT'ers in other nations. It seems like you all congregate in the USA - where freedom of thought, expression and speech has long been the law of the land. What does Mr. President do if the Truth would destroy all that? What if the Warren Commission found out info about JFK's assassination that would destroy the Republic? Would you lie to maintain what we have, or tell the truth and lose the country? Is another civil war and possible takeover by an enemy nation worth telling the Truth?

Yes, it is true that I make a claim, and i would be happy to provide the reasoning behind that claim (I'll bet that some people are dying to see how that isn't an exaggeration ). Make no mistake, the number of 140,000 is not pulled out of the air. I'll have to re-find the source (I'm not at my home computer for the holidays), but as soon as i do, I'll post it...again, as long as it is understood that the purpose is to show how one can make a valid, supported claim, as opposed to actually debating the conspiracy.

Let me start by saying the OP wasn't intentionally loaded. I simply wanted to know whether people debunk out of habit or based on judgement.

The quoted section above deserves a more detailed response.

First off, let me just say that none of us, in my opinion, has even the remotest concept of the how those charged with administering our nations think. Their world view is naturally very different, based as it is on a great deal of information we don't have and will likely never have access to.

Let me also state that I believe 9/11 was either allowed to happen (i.e. there was sufficient foreknowledge to have prevented it) or else it was engineered either entirely or in part by elements within the US. That said, I could be persuaded to accept it was as we're told it was, but I'm a little way off that right now.

So, to return to the your question quoted above: if I were President, and if, after due diligence, I genuinely believed that it was in the clear national interest to mislead the populace, then yes, of course I would.

And I'd go further and maybe shock you a little. Based upon my understanding of the world (which I fully accept, of course, is very limited) I think it would be possible to develop an argument in support of committing an attack like 9/11 with all its unimaginable consequences. At its foundation lies the same principle as above - that I would have to be convinced, after all necessary due diligence, that it was in the overwhelming national interest to carry out such an attack against my own people.

Let me try and explain what must come across as the ramblings of a psychopath.

I have been discussing the invasion of Iraq in the Current Affairs threads here and elsewhere. In almost all cases, some of those who support the war do so notwithstanding the fact that it was clear from the outset that many tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis would die and that several thousand American troops would share their fate. These people argue that there was a national imperative to secure access the region's oil. Now I know a lot of people have spent a lot of time dismissing the accusation that Iraq was about oil, but I think it's about time we accepted the obvious - of course it was about oil, maybe not exclusively, but primarily.

So, if these people could countenance effectively sacrificing several thousand troops (4,000+ and counting) in pursuit of a national imperative, why would they dismiss alternative conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 on the basis that the government would never kill 3,000 of its own people? I think if you approach this from a purely objective standpoint, there's no fundamental difference. If it serves the national imperative, it matters not whether you blow them up in planes and buildings or send them to die at the hands of an enemy, the cost is the same. Perhaps the key difference, and the reason why it might have been done, is that the 'terrorist' act galvanised the nation, in much the same way as Pear Harbor did. Without it, our leaders would not have been able to pursue their agenda, which I'm arguing they may genuinely have believed was a national imperative.

I guess the next question might be: what national imperative could possibly justify killing 3,000 Americans or else allowing them to be killed? The answer is, in broad terms, one that would result in greater national 'pain' if that action hadn't been taken. It's rather like those moral dilemma's we read about - let one person die to save two, etc.

Now this leads on to a much wider discussion, which I'm happy to have at some other time, but first I'll let you digest and comment upon this.

??? Are you joking??? Its the Tuskegee Syphilis experiments is far more than "plausible", its public record. Bill Clintion formally apologized to Tuskegee study participants, YET you still need a "little leap of the imagination required to fill in the gaps"? What gaps are you talking about??



??? Those aren't conspiracy "THEORIES" they are KNOWN HISTORY. Why would "CT'ers scream" about those?? Thats not even the Tuskegee conspiracy most people consider the "Tuskegee conspiracy".

No wonder you guys cannot fathom the possibility that something didn't happen as we were told. You guys don't even know your history let alone KNOW what a conspiracy theory is.

Did you...read what I wrote?



A conspiracy is a conspiracy, even after it gets outed in the broad daylight. That we study some of them in history class does not make them any less a conspiracy.



Did you...read what anyone has written?



Sure we do. Just because you are capable of carrying out an ad hominem attack does not mean that it is accurate.

My personal favorite definition of what a conspiracy theory is comes from Wikipedia: "A conspiracy theory usually attributes the ultimate cause of an event or chain of events (usually political, social, pop cultural or historical events), or the concealment of such causes from public knowledge, to a secret, and often deceptive plot by a cabal of powerful or influential people or organizations. Many conspiracy theories imply that major events in history have been dominated by conspirators who manipulate political happenings from behind the scenes."
Conspiracy Theory/Wikipedia

In other words, a "conspiracy theory" implies the stereotypical paranoid, irrational, approach that certain events in history were manipulated by an evil elite few that many think of when thinking of the stereotypical conspiracy theorist.

A conspiracy, on the other hand, is hardly as loaded as a conspiracy theory is. A conspiracy is something that is not only plausible, but expected and even documented. When that happens, we call it history.



Midgetron, you have just displayed on of the main reasons why skeptics tend to dismiss conspiracy theorists (with all the negative stigma the term implies). The thread has been a civil exchange of ideas so far, with absolutely no one saying that they can't fathom the possibility that something didn't happen as we were told (in fact, making it perfectly clear that this was not the case). You come here not to reason or discuss, but to argue, and you display it clearly by overriding what I wrote with what you believe I was saying. You further react in the exact over-the-top, attempting to overwhelm with so many question marks and exclamation marks that indicate a preference of volume over content. Basically, you try to bowl over instead of discuss, and make many mistakes as you do so. Why should such a posting style be taken seriously? What makes it even worse is that all these things are specifically talked about in the past few posts, and you still went and reacted in the stereotypical manner!

Seriously, re-read the thread, and make sure who is saying what before you try to shoot from the hip again.

There are those CT'ers that claim that September Eleventh and others ARE fact and historical points that are irrefutable... just like you say Tuskegee and D-Day are. Yes, I agree with those - but I am so very highly skeptical of the events in New York, DC and Pennsylvania as related by the CT'ers that I can put no credence in them. For many years, D-Day and the Tuskegee Airman WERE just conspiracies, until the Powers That Be were finally able to admit it.

A theory, in this case, is an idea about an event or occurrence that has been modified for public consumption. The PTB thought it was a good idea that they got credit for putting Black pilots in fighter aircraft and taking credit for the "accidental" success of the crews. The "theory" involved was that it was a plot to make the Black man fail to perpetuate the incorrect ideal that only Whites were valid soldiers, and this theory wasn't proven valid for almost 40 years. It is still a theory, but has the backing of fact. Please keep in mind that gravity and relativity are only theories as well. Both have ample factual proof, but are still relegated to the back aisles of theory.

Yeah, I know what a theory is.

That's the key point right there.

You made a claim. You might try and deny it afterward, but despite your denials you still made a claim.

Now, what you're doing is the typical tactic of a propagandist; persisting in the claim, without supporting it, but trying to play word games in denial and insisting it wasn't a claim so you supposedly don't have to support it - yet STILL persisting in repeating the claim (which you just did).



As I said, you made a claim - and have persisted in not backing it.

I don't believe that they all did. Not at all. Actually, I suspect the great majority haven't even read the NIST report in it's entirety.

You made a wild claim without any support at all about the opinions of thousands of experts WITHOUT A SINGLE SCRAP OF EVIDENCE TO BACK YOUR CLAIM.

I suggest that if your purpose here is not to make wildly unsupported claims, then you should avoid making them.

I have to agree...this notion that 140,000 scientists got together and agreed on the official 9/11 story is madness...they dont allow such cohesiveness..

Oy vey, fine, I agree, I made a claim. Now, can you admit that the point of the entire paragraph and the thread was not about the conspiracy or about any specific claim, but rather how one approaches validity? Unless we come to an understanding on that, this is going to descend into yet another argument about a specific conspiracy which will end nowhere.



Incorrect. I said the claim was valid. I maintain that it is valid. I even said that I am willing to show how it is valid (I forgot to look for that link, but I'll find it later on today). But first, I want to make sure that this isn't going to become a thread about 9/11, or Tuskegee, or any other specific conspiracy. Tell me you understand that point, and I will show you how I came by that claim.



Read the thread again. I am willing to back, as soon as you assure me we aren't going to start talking about 9/11 specifically.



Which is a bold-faced opinion (much more impressive than a regular font opinion). The question is, are you ready to show how you came to that conclusion, as I have already said that I am willing to do as soon as you assure me this isn't a discussion about 9/11.

You made a wild claim without any support at all about the opinions of thousands of experts WITHOUT A SINGLE SCRAP OF EVIDENCE TO BACK YOUR CLAIM.



I haven't made any claims I am not willing to support.

There you go, I have admitted I made a claim, I have admitted that It is incredible, and I have stated that I am ready to show my reasoning behind it as soon as you tell me you understand the point of the argument, which is not specific conspiracies.



Well, again, be careful about what has been said. Earlier, it was said that all 140,000 experts agreed with me, which was incorrect. Now, you are saying that all 140,000 scientists got together and agreed that the official 9/11 story is (may I assume that you meant to include "not" here?) madness. Again, that is incorrect. The claim was never that all the experts agreed with me, or that they all got together and said the report was not madness.

Like I said in my very first post, this is a very common thing. Instead of asking a person to support the actual claim that was made, instead a demand for evidence for something that was not claimed, and that is far more incredible than the claim that was actually made, is presented. That sort of thing is a red flag.

As soon as I am sure that this is clear, I'll show you my reasoning behind the original claim, and how it remains valid.

Here's what I see as a red flag, someone making a claim;


Then being TOTALLY UNABLE to support that claim.

Instead, you have tried to wriggle all over the place to AVOID supporting the claim.

What you're doing is what a propagandist does.

I'll ask you a fourth time: Do you understand that the topic is not about specific claims or specific conspiracies, but about how one decides is something is valid or not?

The moment you say yes, I will be assured that this will not descend into another discussion about 9/11 and I will show you exactly how I came to that conclusion.

We're all waiting for you, Lovely.

I'm with Lovely here. You shaped the agenda when, in post #2, you spoke very specifically about 9/11. Here is your post, in full, with the 9/11-related segment in bold.


You've been asked a very simple question, in my opinion. How have you determined that '140,000 engineers, architects, and material science professionals and students the world over looked over the [NIST report] and didn't find anything out of the ordinary'? I don't see why you just can't come out and respond so we can move on. If, after doing so, it raises more questions than answers, well then that's fair too. After all, as you rightly point out, 'It isn't the claims that cause a skeptic to sigh in frustration at the claims conspiracy theorists make; it is the sloppy manner in which the presentations are made that make the claims lose credibility'.

Well, you've made a claim and presented it here without any form of substantiation. Your obfuscation is damaging your credibility.

I feel sure that, had Lovely claimed in this thread that 140,000 engineers, architects, and material science professionals and students the world over looked over NIST's report and found a whole bunch of anomalies, you'd be demanding to know who they were, what qualifications they held and what anomalies they'd uncovered.

And as you see, I was using 9/11 as a sample and nothing more. I was using to directly compare one line of evidence leading to a very direct conclusion and another that was far more vague in origin. You can see it in the very first bolded section you quote, when I speak of specific and unspecific acts.

It is exactly this that I will not be dragged into. I will not be dragged into another useless discussion about 9/11. I will, however, happily explain how i came to the conclusion about the 140,000 as soon as you can assure me that this will not happen. I will be happy to discuss skepticism and validity. I will not discuss conspiracies.



You can't see why? After I've explained it four times (five now), you can't see why? After you make it very clear above that you intend to continue to talk specifically about 9/11, you still don't understand why I am not going to answer until you can assure me that this thread is not going to become a 9/11 discussion?

I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it. I have absolutely no intention of discussion specific theories. None. I spent a long time as a moderator of the conspiracy board in this very forum, and I got my fill of conspiracies for a long, long time. I will, however, happily discuss what constitutes validity. Credibility. I will talk about when a claim is incredible, and when it is not, and I will certainly point out how easy it is to take one claim and make it into something else, and then demand an explanation for the something else. That I will happily discuss. And when you tell me that you understand that I intend to stay in that topic, the topic, incidentaly, which this thread is about, then we can continue.

Otherwise, how can we possibly continue when all that I am seeing is a desire to deviate from the topic?



I won't apologize for how I speak. I love words, and how they flow and dance. If you do not, or you feel that long words are a sign of deception or deceit, that is up to you.



Would it surprise you to know that I wouldn't? Would you like to know why?

All I need to move along and give you what you demand is one thing: Your assurance that we will discuss validity, credibility, and reason, not 9/11. I have no interest in conspiracies.

Don't give me this "I've explained it four times (five now)' crap, as if I'm some kind of buffoon. You're the one who appears to be missing the point here.

The bottom line is this: you made a specific claim, now back it up. If you cannot, just say so. If you can, fine, but be prepared to answer more questions if your explanation is inadequate.

As for it blossoming into a wider 9/11 conspiracy discussion, I see absolutely no need; there are plenty of other threads for that. But you have a case to answer here by virtue of having made a specific claim.

I cannot speak for Lovely - he/she may have a different agenda. But even if he/she presses you about 9/11 more broadly, all you have to do is ignore it. It's really no big deal.

Yep.




Did you even read what I wrote? Go back and take notice of the all caps and quotation marks around "THEORIES". A conspiracy is a conspiracy, even after it gets outed in the broad daylight but its no longer a conspiracy "THEORY".




Nowhere in wiki's definition is anything which could be construed as defining theorists as "paranoid or irrational" or those responsible as an "evil elite few". Those are your words and a poorly disguised "ad hominem attack".

Your postion seems to be that people who thought the D-day or Tuskeege conspiracys were conspiracys before those conspiracies were documented were "paranoid and irrational" for making such a theorization. Even though they were correct?

Yet, after something is documented it becomes "plausible"? In other words "Apparent rather than actual or substantial". You wouldn't say its "plausible" that the sky is blue would you?

1 : superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable but often specious <a plausible pretext>
2 : superficially pleasing or persuasive <a swindler… , then a quack, then a smooth, plausible gentleman — R. W. Emerson>
3 : appearing worthy of belief <the argument was both powerful and plausible>

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/plausible
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/superficially

You said the Tuskegee experiment was "plausible" and would only take a "very little leap of the imagination required to fill in the gaps". Again I will ask you, what "gaps" do you need to fill in something which is "documented"??



Its pretty obvious you didn't know the reality of the Tuskegee experiment and are just trying to talk your way out if it, just as you have been doing with your claims you are discussing with coughy and lovely. Speaking of "volume over content", notice how much you wrote in response to the couple of sentances I wrote? And nowhere in there did you answer what "gaps" need to be filled by the imagination in something which is documented.




That doesn't apply to history though. No one describes historical events as "theories" as in the "theory of the American Revolution" or the "theory of the great depression". Try asking a history professor to explain the "theory of the holocaust" to you.

In science, theories like gravity and relativity are the credited published works of a specific person, which is why they retain the concept of being a "theory" as in "the theory of relativity". History on the other hand is an accumilation of sources and evidence from which an accepted picture is drawn. If some day new information comes to light and proves a conspiracy behind the JFK assasination, the new understanding of the assasination would not be know or thought of as the "JFK theory".

You asked why the "CT'ers" were not crying about Tuskegee and D-day and the "T" in "CT'ers" stands for "theorist". So, why would conspiracy THEORISTS "cry" about a historical conspiracy which is documented and requires no theorizing?

Unless of course, you are suggesting we don't know the real story behind Tuskegee and D-day? Which, I assume is not your point.

I guess I just don't understand why you think CTers should be "crying" about conspiracies which are allready documented.

Do you?

If you don't want to have your claims brought into the question and can't back them, then don't make them.

Seriously, it appears you try to apply one rule to yourself, and another rule to everyone else.

No, as I can see, apparently others can see too, you used the thread subject as an excuse to push a claim, and now can't back it. You were called on it, and now try to play word games in avoidance of backing the claim.

if you really wanted to avoid being called to back your claims, then you should never have tried to use the thread subject as a vehicle for pushing them.

if you were making an honest mistake, and had the guts to own up to it, then you would've dropped the claim already by now - very clearly, and admitted that you can't back it - then edited the original post to remove the claim.

aquitus1, coughymachine tends to get on my nerves, but in this case he's right (IMO). By using specifics in your argument and using September Eleventh as a focal point of your original post, you have painted yourself into a corner. Either apologize for talking out of your fourth point of contact, or provide some cites for your claims.


Yes, you are correct - I should have said, "versions" rather than "theories". Ask a New York history teacher about the "American Civil War" and you will get an answer... but ask an Alabamian history teacher about the "War of Northern Aggression" and you get another completely. It all depends upon which versions of events the person that is relating the story wants to believe. Like the Holocaust. There are those that believe that 13+ million people died. There are those that believe that it was under 100,000. There are those that believe there were ovens, and those that don't. It is "versions" rather than "theories."

And, history also evolves over time.

Take Columbus and the follow-on explorers to the "New World." Look at how the rescue of the dirty savages in the American colonies was morphed into the rape of several civilizations at the hands of Christian terrorists. There were those that believed in the crimes some 400 years ago - but nobody believed them. There are those that still believe in the altruist and beneficent motives of Columbus and the others - and there are many more that no longer agree with them.

There were those that believed that something horrid was happening at Tuskegee but nobody believed them... until more information came out and the government finally admitted to the LSD testing. There are still those that believe that it never happened, as well as those that believe that it was a GOOD thing.

I used the term "theory" to describe what some believed the background story for the event was and how it differed from the presented story. The moon-landing is one: The media/government related a successful (usually) mission, with ample proof (pics/rocks) that it occurred. There are those "theorists" that reject the presented story and substitute what they believe to be a story that fits the events better (movie set and no mission). What's the truth? As of right now, the presented version of a successful mission - until the story changes... then the "truth" will change... until we find out that there were little moon-bugs that we destroyed by even hinting at landing there - and then the truth will be of genocide and evil bastages that were bent on destroying everything that isn't human in the multiverse.

Look at the world itself! At one time, it was KNOWN FACT that the world was the center of the universe and was flat. Slowly, the "truth" changed and evolved to say that the Earth is round (basically) and is just a part of a huge universe that revolves around something else entirely.

History is something that we can't pin down with 'facts' because the interpretation of the 'facts' change over time - and sometimes even the 'facts' change. Heck, look at September Eleventh... it is a historical event that is over and done with - a "fact"... but look at how interpretations of the "facts" have created a home for websites like this!!

No - unfortunately its a Conspiracy free for all zone.

some of them will eventually be proven to be true
some of them will eventually be proven false
some of them will remain forever conspiracy theories
and some will remain as they are - just plain wacko!

And No matter what,who, where, or why, - people will still spend hours on the net debating them

The only one I care about is the one that says there will soon be world peace between all races of humankind - everyone try to hurry that one along a bit please!

You know, it's funny.
I don't think that the vast majority of "debunkers" actually insult the intelligence of the CT who's conspiracy theory they address. Generally speaking, if they do, they are warned about it right away.

There's very little of that here. Ideas are assaulted, not people. Quite frankly, the vast majority of the actual insults that are seen come from CTs who take offense to having their lack of rationality and logical thought processes assailed by those very aspects of critical and rational thought.

Aquatus has commented herein...and he is most assuredly not an insulter. Never has been, never will be. He is astute, quick, and a debater who you had better have your chips stacked up neatly against.

Based upon the fact that he's catching a real raft here...which is almost comical to witness (in that a classical CT mode of opeation in in full force---taking a single snippet of his post and mis-interpreting it to an almost obstinate degree, and diverting from the import of the post altogether, as well as the purpose of the thread---is being illustrated for all to see), I smell a trap.



If you take a careful look at this post, he answered the question posed completely. He responded, and he, in no way, fits the person that you address in your post. Of course, I'm not sure who actually does.

A reminder of your qualification list...


He also stated his position rather clearly:

I repeat:




Somehow, that seems to have struck a nerve...and so, this completely substantiated snippet (for which he shall show you documentation, I am sure)...



Has served as a rallying cry for the afflicted, and has turned this into a joke, because the responses neglect the point of the thread...despite his qualification!



Oy vey, indeed!

On one hand you claim "Ideas are assaulted, not people". Then you turn around and say its because the the CTers take offense to their "lack of rationality and logical thought processes (being) assailed". Can you explain why you think attacking someone by saying they lack "rationality and logical thought processes" is an attack on their "ideas"?

By that logic, couldn't I counter your "ideas" by saying you have the mental capacity of a turd?

Seriously, who do you think you are fooling?

1. To attack with or as if with violent blows; assault.
2. To attack verbally, as with ridicule or censure. See Synonyms at attack.
3. To trouble; beset: was assailed by doubts.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/assailed

I love one resident debunker coming to the rescue of another....all we want is the 140,000 names..is that too much to ask?....

My statement is only an attack or an insult because you think it is. How typical. I am merely pointing out a salient fact. There is a decided lack of rational and logical thought process exhibited in the vast majority of CTs. This has been copiously illustrated time and time again.

Who exactly did I insult? Did I not address an intellectual paradigm, characteristic of a certain group?

If I wanted to insult, I would've stated what you did:



Answer: No, you couldn't by that logic...but you did, which proves my point.




Case closed.

Aqauatus needs no rescue.

You don't want 140,000 names. Who are you kidding?

Even when substantiation is presented showing that this is a realistic figure, it won't do any more good than all 140,000 names would individually.

They'll just be 140,000 dupes...mindless dwarves who buy into anything the government says.


You folks have made my point.
It's been fun...

You, whilst trying your hardest not to appear to be doing so, are one of the worst culprits. For example, in the Top 10 Wackiest Conspiracy Theories thread, you said:

Now I know you might want us to think you didn't specifically state that CTs lack intelligence or that they have failed to attain what you might consider to be an acceptable standard of education, but that was your clear implication.

I accept this for the most part, though not what followed

No one has accused him of this as far as I know.

You're wrong - there's no trap here. Aquatas made a claim. It's perfectly legitimate to ask him to substantiate it.

Yes, let's hope so.

And in so doing, made a claim he should be prepared to back up. Why he and now you feel it's necessary to make a big deal out of this, I don't know.

Perhaps I can ask you a straight question, MID.

Do you agree with his claim that "...140,000 engineers, architects, and material science professionals and students the world over looked over the thing and didn't find anything out of the ordinary"?

Just for the record, I have no view one way or the other. But I do care that when a claim is made it is backed up, not least because when a CT makes any sort of claim, it is leapt upon by mainstreamers demanding proof.

You attacked a group by saying they lacked rational though processes, insulting everyone who belong to that group. More so, you defended the attacking of that group as a valid form of argument. So, by your logic, its a fair method of debate to claim its a "salient fact" that the vast majority of debunkers have the mental capacity of a turd (something I would not do).

Not only that, you also demonstrated a bigoted mind set in your condemnation of anyone who doesn't share your views by largely lumping them into a single group and applying a negative characteristic to them.

The rest of your post just proves it was a flame bait troll job from the start. You insult people and when they call you out on it, you claim its "proof" of your point. You could have saved us the flowery pseudo logic and just posted "ahomosayswhat"?

MIDs never been wrong in all the years ive known him just ask him...

Basically I debunk the Apollo hoax and 9/11 controlled demolition theories because I'm an engineer with the background and expertise to see how ridiculous the conspiracy claims are. I certainly do not believe that any government is guiltless, but governments leak information and I do not think that conspiracies on this scale are possible even if they didn't have problems with engineering reality. I am quite prepared to believe in smaller scale conspiracies involving, say, individual assassinations, false charges against opponents (eg Iraq WMD), etc.

I think you're a long way (and the 'you' here is both you and the engineering community) from proving demolition theories are 'ridiculous' and, perhaps more importantly, proving demolition theories false doesn't mean 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy, which is a point you got a bit wrapped up on in another thread. Additionally, you're a long way from proving the mainstream collapse theories are valid.

I also don't agree that that conspiracies on that scale are impossible. Operation Gladio, which was responsible for the Strategy of Tension throughout Europe, was conceived in the 1950s and wasn't exposed until the ~1990. That's a very long time indeed for an operation of that magnitude to be kept concealed, particularly when they were bombing civilians here there and everywhere, and blaming the Communists.

I apologize for not posting sooner. I spent all of yesterday with my family, and i will soon have to be heading back to Florida, and that will be the end of my vacation and my posting here at UM for another year. I have spent some of this morning looking for the link from which I initially drew my conclusions, and unfortunately, have come up empty. Hopefully, I will be able to find the link at my home computer in Florida and post it then. In the meantime, all I can ofter is the rationale behind my claim. Perhaps, after i have done that, some of you will even then be able to understand why the claim itself, as i have repeatedly stated, is irrelevant, and how knowing the sources will actually not affect the argument in any way.

There is a group out there know as the Scholars for 9/11 Truth who began a petition signed by experts in many different fields, ranging from statistics, to programing, to physics, to psychology. The thrust of this paper was a statement that the undersigned (and about two pages worth of signatures followed) found that the NIST report contained major errors and omissions, and needed to be re-evaluated.

Essentially, this petition, which received a certain amount of notoriety when it began, became a rallying point for those who believed that the NIST report was completely invalid. It was held up, and still is in many circles, as evidence that there were people out there much more intelligent than (presumably) you or I, experts in the way our society deems experts, in short, people whose decisions should be respected said that the NIST report was wrong and therefore it was worthless.

Now, here is the part where, if I was presenting this claim in a debate about 9/11, where i would have to show my citation. I would have to show proof of the following statement: None of the people who signed the petition where subscribers to the NIST Journal.. Unfortunately, I cannot currently find the reference for that.

Now, what does that say about the people who did sign it? It says absolutely nothing, and here is where you are going to start to see why the citation for the claim is actually not important. Let us assume that every single person who signed the petition was an acknowledged expert in their field. Let us assume they had written dozens of papers and had their pages wallpapered with certifications, degrees, honoraries, and had a whole alphabet soup of letters after their names. In short, let us assume that the credibility of the signers of the petition was as high as high, no citation needed. What would we have?

Well, we would have a petition claiming the NIST report was wrong from a group of people who do not work in the field, and do not subscribe to the journal of that field.

But how important is that? How important is it that these people are not subscribers to the NIST journal? Why, asks the skeptic, should this detail matter? So what if they didn't read the journal?

Well, what is a scientific journal? It is far more than just idle reading.

A scientific journal is something so important that it is actually included in the five pre-requisites of scientific methodology. Prior to any theory being considered valid, it must meet all five pre-requisites, and among those pre-requisites is the necessity of disseminating information. What does that mean? Disseminating information means that the research that you have uncovered and that has been peer-reviewed and found to be valid must become available to the field. The purpose of research is to produce data that contributes to the field, and the data contained in the scientific journal is data that every builder and engineer and designer absolutely has to be familiar with. In the world of engineering, biology, geology, and any other -ology you care to mention, scientific journals are the lifeline between the practioner and the practice. One does not read a scientific journal for the interesting snippets; one reads them because the difference between knowing the latest research and not knowing it could well result in life or death. In the case of Morbity and Mortality, a doctor could well lose a patient. In the case of the Journal of Research of NIST, it could mean that a building could fall because the engineer didn't incorporate the new knowledge.

I remember as a student of architecture, we were required to subscribe to the NIST journal, and it was not rare that our teachers would assign questions on current articles, or if they were feeling particularly mean, on past ones. The simple fact of the matter is that the NIST journal is read by over 500,000 subscribers all over the world, at least 140,000 of them right here in the U.S., and the people who read it are all practicioners, engineers, students, teachers, people who not only understand what is contained, but who actively put it to use. With that huge a sampling group, if there is any major fault in the NIST report, if there is any gap that would catastrophically invalidate the entire report, it would be found. Not only would it be found, it would be immediately be pointed out. Remember that these are people all over the world who rely on the information being as accurate as possible, because if it is not, then they might well suffer for it.

So how many of these experts likely read the whole report? Think about it...this was the first time in history that a skyscraper collapsed! And not just one, but three! That is absolutely fantastic in terms of new information to be gleaned. Did every single subscriber read the NIST journal? I don't have signed statements from every single one of them, but heck, even I went back to the college library and picked up the current issue, and i wasn't an architecture student by then.

So what does all this mean in terms of my claim? Let's look:



Can a 9/11 hoax believer claim that the NIST has invalid points? Yes, it can. Experts, and by that I mean the 140,000 American subscribers, would agree. There are parts of the NIST report that are debated on to this day. Is this anything out of the ordinary? Not at all. Even mundane disasters always carry an element of mystery, if for no other reason than the nature of the tragedy, which tends to destroy data. For something like this, that has no precedent in history, it is not only not odd, it is expected that there will be points that will be debated until future data comes to light. New evidence might well appear that indicates that the entire report NIST report is wrong! For all we know, aliens from Mars used a demolition ray on the building (unlikely, but hey, anythings possible). Does this make it invalid? Not at all. The theory remains valid until falsified. Until that evidence that the martians did it shows up, the theory is still valid, regardless of being wrong.

And even at that, the most common claim is that the entire report is garbage! This is similar to the creationist argument that because there is some disagreement in a few evolutionary theories, all of evolution must be wrong. This is the claim that some are having fits about, but I say that it makes perfect sense. If (and I acknowledge that I have not yet provided the source), the NIST journal is the required reading of the engineering field, and if none of the people who professionally read the NIST journal agree with the petition that specifically states that the NIST report is invalid and should be done over from the beginning, then the null hypothesis, the reverse of the question would logically be that anyone who does sign the petition is claiming that they have found an error that invalidates the entire report, in a field that they are not a part of. They read a report that contained the research on the most significant engineering event in centuries, a subject of great interest to the professionals in the field, and they were somehow able to spot something that all the experts did not spot. They were able to find a reason to say the report was garbage, while all the experts who read it missed it completely.

That is the reasoning behind the sample that I gave. Now, if you are still awake, I want to ask for your patience once again as I continue to search for that link (It has been over two years since I last used it) and I will provide it to you so that you may continue in your other arguments. However, I want to ask for just a little more time, just a slight bit more patience, as i explain why the citation, as I have so obstinetly been insisting, is irrelevant. Please, bear with me.

Why was i afraid that this would become a 9/11 topic and not a discussion about validity? It was simply this. If one is counting the 9/11 claim in my original post, then out of fairness it must be pointed out that I did not make just one claim. I did, in fact, make two. I also made the claim, an I completely, utterly, and absolutely, failed to support it, that there is evidence that directly links specific people to their specific roles in the actions for the Tuskegee experiments.

Where is the outrage? Why has no one made any mention of that? Why have my sources for that statement been demanded?

We have government involvement. We have victims. We have experts. We even have evidence and documentation. Really, when one looks at it, there is no difference between the claims except for the content of the claims themselves. But the content was largely irrelevant. They were being used as examples of techniques, not as individual claims.

How does that work? Let's break it down: The original post consist of two subjects, and three samples to illustrate those two subjects. People here are claiming those samples to be claims, and I will show shortly why they are not.

The first subject was a conspiracies that has evidence that points in a logical and unbiased manner to the conclusion. The sample I provided was the Tuskegee experiments. This was an example containing specific people connected to specific events. It contained very few required leaps of logic (I don't need a signed affidavit from the each individual doctors that they each administered shots to the victims; I can spot that claim some validity without having it having to be documented). Does it matter if the Tuskegee conspiracy is true or not? No,it doesn't. It could be absolutely 100% true, or it could all be a pack of absolute lies, and it would not make a bit of difference, because it is being used as a sample of specific actions connected in a logical manner to specific people or events.

To contrast this example, I talked about the False Flag argument, and how it tried to connect a very unspecific, a very broad concept (the U.S. had plans in place concerning false flags attack), to a very unspecific act (9/11: All of it, some of it, this part but not that part...what?) Again, does it matter if the False Flag argument is true or not? No, it doesn't. The American Government could have entire textbooks in place about false flag attacks and none of that would change it one wit. You would still have a very broad claim and no specific, logical, unbiased link.

Then we come to the second subject and the last example. The one that everyone is holding onto with all the tenacity of a pitbull holding a steak. The subject is quite clearly stated in the very first sentence of the paragraph: "I do not believe conspiracy theories that begin with an opening volley decrying the currently held viewpoint as absolutely idiotic, and anyone who believes it must be nothing more than mindless sheep". The sample followed the subject; a theory that denied the viewpoint as absolutely wrong: The NIST people on one side and the report deniers on the other.

Does it matter that it was 140,000 experts? Does it matter that it was 500,000 experts? Does it matter that only one report denier found something wrong, or ten found something wrong, or 1000 found something wrong? No, it doesn't. The specific numbers do not change the purpose of the example. The purpose of the example is to illustrate that it is completely illogical to claim that many experts in a field are unable to see something that utterly invalidates a report when a non-expert in the field can easily do so.

This is very important stuff. Think about: It doesn't matter if the Tuskegee conspiracy is correct or not. It is still far more specific and logical than other theories. It doesn't matter if the false flag arguments are correct or not. They still do not show a logical progression from the event to the conclusion. That is why they are examples; they illustrate a point. They aren't cases in and of themselves, but rather concepts used to clarify the actual subject. When you ignore the subject and focus on the examples, you get what you got here: a derailed thread.

The NIST report could have been replaced by an example of how Bigfoot believers claim that every single expert is wrong when they claim that irrefutable evidence of Bigfoot exists. It could be replaced with an example of how Area 51 believers claim that they know what happened at Roswell, and all the talking about balloons are wrong. It could be replaced with how creationists claim that all of Evolution must be wrong because experts disagree on a few theories. It could be replaced with a dozen different examples, and for each one of those examples you can find someone who will righteously rise up and demand an accounting for it, but when all is said and done, the example is meaningless in content. It doesn't matter if Bigfoot exists, it doesn't matter if it wasn't a balloon, it doesn't matter if evolution is correct or a total crock. There is only one thing that all these examples have in common, and that is that they illustrate the subject of the the argument, which was, and remains, that the argument that one non-expert can claim that something that many experts looked at is wrong; the experts just can't see it.

Hopefully, that will have cleared up a few things. As I said, I will continue to look for the link back home, just for the sake of completeness, but when all is said and done, what matters is the subject, not the contents of the samples. If they were so important, I should have been called on all of them, not just the ones that you happen to disagree with on a personal basis.

I remain willing to explain and clarify anything you wish, but bear in mind that the topic of this thread is NOT 9/11. The topic of this thread is how one conspiracy can be more valid than another.

I haven't personally argued anything about the Apollo moon landings, but as to the 9/11 controlled demolition, I'm certain of WTC 1,2 & being controlled demolitions because I know PHYSICS and have the knowledge to recognise a controlled demolition when I see it.




Do you never pay any attention or is just making emotional statements based on feelings your version of "rationalisation"?

There is no real difficulty in maintaining large conspiracies with secrecy - they're common and normal. Every large organised crime group is a conspiracy, and groups such as the mafia and yakuza have bene pretty successful for centuries. Corporate research projects depend on secrecy too, and they're elargely successful as well. Any large scale secret miliatry operation is a sonspiracy too. Same with intelligence agencies. They all depend on compartmentalisation of information to those who "need to know". The NSA was was able to hide it's existence from the American public for FORTY YEARS without a leak until the 1980s. The Manhattan Project involved thousands of people and operated for years during wartime with spies everywhere, but the German and japanese governments apparently didn't have a clue about it's existence, and nobody in the public knew about it until HIROSHIMA.

Hiding a huge conspiracy is EASY!

but the 9/11 attacks didn't need to be a "huge conspiracy", and only a fool would claim it. Only those at the very top would need to be directly involved in planning and knowing what was going on, Less than 50, possibly less than a dozen. I haven't seen anyone able to show an actual necessity for more than that. It would be evern easier to hide than the NSA or the Manhattan project by a loooooong way.

Sorry but that is still a circular argument (and thus a logical fallacy) and doesn't get around the fact that you are making a claim without being able to back it.

You haven't even posted a survey of those 140,000 people to show that they all agree with what you're claiming.

You keep making the same claim to popularity without ever being able to back it. That's the tactic of a propagandist. You've been called on it before, MANY TIMES ALREADY - yet you still persist in playing word games instead of backing your BS

Umm...could you walk me through that? I'm not seeing the circular part.

If there is a journal that is read by all the experts in a field, and none of the subscribers to that journal have agreed with the petition that claims the report posted in that journal is incorrect to the point of being entirely invalid, then wouldn't it be logical to conclude that none of the experts agree with the petition?



True, but you are making it sound like I am dodging the request. I addressed that in the very first paragraph.



And I have no intention of doing so. I already explained how the number came to be used by me, and it was not through a survey. Why are you asking for something that does not exist, when I have clearly explained where the number came from?

What is the difference between what you did above and what I talked about in my post, where I talked about how people take one claim and turn it into a different, far more incredible one, and demand evidence for it? Isn't that exactly what you have done here?



I don't understand this sentence at all. What have I not addressed in my post. I talked about the source, I talked about my rational behind the claim, and even after all that, I talked about why the whole thing was irrelevant and how the example you are so worked up about is so utterly irrelevant that it could be substituted by a host of other examples without changing a thing.
...
...
...
Seriously, I spent close to an hour carefully explaining the entire thing that i spent so much time saying was irrelevant, and then spent more time explaining why it was irrelevant, and you call it word games? I am actually a little insulted. After all that I've seen on the past two pages, the demands for an explanation, the complete refusal to actually that it isn't on topic, I spend the time to carefully type out an answer, and you just leap right over it and call it word games? Jesus freaking Christ.

[quoteThe Manhattan Project involved thousands of people and operated for years during wartime with spies everywhere, but the German and japanese governments apparently didn't have a clue about it's existence, and nobody in the public knew about it until HIROSHIMA.
[/quote]
But the Russians knew about it. They had spies in the program

But the Russians knew about it. They had spies in the program.
http://www.cfo.do