Originally posted by kroms33
reply to post by GoodOlDave
Movement? I wouldn't classify it as a movement at all unless your are going the "truther route." Conspiracy theorists = THEORY: meaning "a
looking at, viewing, beholding", and refers to contemplation or speculation, as opposed to action.
I sincerely hope you can remind some of your fellow conspiracy theorists here of that, as they seem to have forgotten this. All to often I'm seeing
that their agenda is NOT to learn any of the fact behind the events of 9/11, but to zealously promote some conspiracy theory or another regardless of
what the facts are. Case in point- it would seem to me that the first step for ANY person to learn about 9/11 is to start by reading the 9/11
Commission report. If you accept that it was a legitimate terrorist attack it gives details on how the attack was organized and the gov'ts response
during the attack, and if you don't accept that it was a legitimate terrorist attack then you need to know what the lies are in the report before you
can even accuse them of being lies, particularly if you can demonstratively show they are lies. I think I've met perhaps only TWO conspiracy
theorists who claim to have read it. The remainer openly state they refuse to read it becuase "it's a pack of lies". The only reason how someone
can declare something is a pack of lies without knowing what the lies even are is if they want it to be a pack of lies.
Tell me, did you read it?
What misrepresentation do you speak of and in what terms? Seriously? What info are you going to use to counter a theory suggested - MSM?
Government? Alternative Press? Eyewitness accounts?
Your logic is flawed in many various aspects just with stating that you object to the conspiracy theorist "movement" because of how it misrepresents
issues... but yet, they are just Theories.
Glad you asked! It's less the case that I have resistance to the idea there's some conspiracy going on and more the case the conspiracy theorists
are relying on outright falsified information and therefore have little credibility. Some examples are-
-"All the WTC bomb dogs were withdrawn before the attack", which is a distorted way of saying the NYPD bomb dogs were temporarily assigned to the
WTC to augment the NYPA's own bomb dogs after a phony bomb scare. The NYPD's dogs were withdrawn but the NYPA's dogs were always there. One of
them, named, "Sirius", was killed in the collapse
-"Cheney's stand down order", which is a distorted way of saying there was a shoot down order and Mineta heard someone ask Cheney whether the order
still stands. Mineta said in the very next sentence that he later found out it was a shoot down order they were referring to.
-"Silverstein's, "Pull it"" which is a distorted way of saying the fire department pulled the firefighters out of WTC 7 becuase the fires were
out of control and there was enough loss of life as it was. "Pull it" is demolition lingo for demolishing a building BY PULLING IT DOWN WITH
CABLES, like the way WTC 5 was demolished.
There are other examples, but you get the idea. The conspiracy theorists always always always leave out some critical detail that, if they actually
revealed it, would show the exact opposite of what they're attempting to prove. There's no way such misdirection like this can be accidental.
Which completely negates the logic of your post. So, you come to a conspiracy web site to push an agenda that conspiracies are flawed because they
don't add up because they are... theories?
How many variables need to be added to said conspiracy? What if there was only one variable? Or even two?
I don't think people are talking about scenarios at all.
ATS is not a conspiracy web site, per se. It's more like a conspiracy discussion forum where many different conspiracy theories are discussed and
anyone on either side of the issue can come and have their say. True conspiracy web sites (I.E. Loose Change) have an in-house conspiracy they're
peddling at the expense of open discussion up to and including outright censorship. I know this because I was banned from their site after about two
weeks, and their YOU ARE BANNED message to me they *specifically* said it was because I was posting material they didn't want to be posted there.
Another person posting "no planes" conspiracy theories was banned after only one week.
Tell me now, in all honesty, is THIS consistant with ATS' mission statement to, "Deny ignorance"?
I think why many people come up with conspiracy theories is because of the use of variables, not scenarios. Perhaps your perception of the
"movement" of conspiracy theorists is a bit .... wrong/flawed and illogical?
I cannot address this one way of the other since I'm not certain in what context you mean by, "use of variables". To me, to develop an
explanation, one needs to listed to the evidence and then draw up an explanation which best fits the evidence. The conspiracy theorists on the other
hand draw up an explanation first and then cherry picks the evicence that supports the explanation and intentionally ignores the evidence that refutes
it. Case in point- the OP's asserion Sirhan Sirhan's assassination was a gov't conspiracy. He suggests there were multiple shooters other that
just Sirhan Sirhan but he surmises the second shooter was a gov't agent. All right, let's assume there was a second shooter. How do we know it
wasn't Sirhan Sirhan's brother? How do we know it wasn't yet another drunk and angry muslim? How do we know it wasn't some street thug hired by
Sirhan Sirhan to assist him? There is zero evidence showing who that secondary shooter could have been but the OP assumes all on his own the second
shooter was connected to the gov't because the explanation conforms to his own antiestablishment outlook on life, which he himself admits he has.
Change, "Sirhan Sirhan" to, well, pretty much any other conspiracy, and the situation is exactly the same. How any variables would come into play
here, I cannot say. Please explain.