It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A few questions to the no plane hit the wtc theorists

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 03:18 AM
link   
This message is for the OP and others who may wish to challenge the conspiracy theorits.

I hold the "conventional" belief of what happened on 9-11. I am of the belief that the WTC towers were hit by two planes and they were destroyed as a result of the planes hitting the builiding and not some other factor like bombs being planted in or around the builing. I am of the belief the WTC was destroyed by Al Qaida, and not some other entity like the CIA or Israel.

There are many people on this board who do not share my "conventional" beliefs about what happened on 9-11. While using "conventional" arguments might be persuavive to the overwhelming majority of people out there, people who do not share the "conventional" belief about what happened on 9-11 will never be persuaded by these conventional arguments. Using "conventional" arguments to persuade to 9-11 conspiracy theorists is like using the Bible to pesuade an atheist.

Just as an atheist feels the Bible is a man-made work of fiction, as opposed a divinely inspired truth, the conspiracy theorist feels mainstream media reports of 9-11 are fabrications rather than reliable sources of information. It is almost impossible for someone with the "conventional" view to bolster their arguments with facts when arguing with a conspiracy theorist because the facts the "conventional" view person has will come from mainstream media which the conspiracy theorist will find untruthful. Similarly people who hold the "conventional" point of view are skeptical of the facts and authorities cited by the conspiracy theorists.

So in short, if you hold the "conventional" point of view, you have to learn to argue using unconventional facts and sources. You should bolster your argument not with what you read in The Economist or the Wall Street Journal, but what you have read in conspiracy literature.




posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 



ya know, i can see your point but i dont know...im not really here to 'challenge' anyone but myself or convince anyone they're wrong.

i have, quixoticly, tried to educate people about demo so that they dont rely on hollywood and apply it to 911 in the past. but mostly im trying to challenge myself. i like to think im open minded, honestly. if i challenge someones theories against what i know its becuase im willing to accept i could be wrong and when they can defend their theory against what i know to where im left going "huh, maybe they're right" then maybe I will be one step closer to understanding.

but when i get to the "well 'they' have this supersecret stuff no one knows about'" (NO offense john, youre not the first or last to make such statements, you just happen to be most recent, and by far the most eloquent
)then i just give up for a while. its no longer worth my time.



 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join