Truthers VS Debunkers, what gives??

I have been reading a lot of threads lately about conspiracy theories and watching debunkers riddle them with holes.

Well let me be clear, when I say riddle with holes I'm not by any means saying that they are debunking such conspiracies but rather slinging mud.

I don't know where to post this and I really just want to get some opinions from both sides,... 9/11 Truthers and debunkers alike.

That's simply the generic name I have chosen to use for both sides so no offense to anyone.



Anyway I'm tired of seeing a truther come on ATS with some new "PROOF" that's going to somehow turn the tides of the info war and initiate the second great American revolution.

Likewise I'm just as tired as seeing debunkers come to do what can only be described as verbal BATTLE with the truthers by using every conceivable conspiracy theory ever contrived by man as a weapon in their arsenal to tarnish truthers credibility.



It should be known that I myself am a truther for the 9/11 event and NOT an anything goes conspiracy theorist.

I have on multiple occasions scored above average on psychological tests and higher than normal in logic examinations so I'm not some wild eyed tinfoil hat wearing nut job who's sole mission in life is to oust the American administration.



So If a debunker answers this thread with a "shoot first ask questions later" strategy by attacking me right out of the gate or undermining my character by trying to re-feed me the logic of my own OP it will only add to the point of the question's I'm about to ask.



#1 First let me say I have no ill feelings toward debunkers nor do I feel sorry for them in anyway as though I somehow had all the answers and those poor people cant see the light, that's not the case at all.



and



#2 I am not writing this to lend credence to the 9/11 truth movement either so let no misinterpretation preside about my intentions or that I have some secret agenda I want my motives to be very clear and understandable.



The Question:



Whats the deal with debunkers and truthers fighting it out all the time by blasting each other with cutting remarks and derogatory come backs about whatever happened on 9/11?

It is painfully clear that both sides are often grasping at thin air when it comes to lending any credibility to their story which by the way they defend like a religion.

So when a truther says their is evidence of bombs in the building a debunker falls all over his or her self trying to prove it's not so.

Keep in mind it's Only evidence Not proof hence their is no real reason to debunk so aggressively and make your (the Debunkers) ideas get shot down before they ever get any momentum. Don't misunderstand this goes for both sides truthers too.



I notice that the same EXACT strategy plays out when a debunker brings a possibility to a truthers attention and rather than excepting it as what it is which is EVIDENCE in favor of debunkers side of the debate the 9/11 truther replies with such comments as "your Ignorant" or "once again you have put your foot in your own mouth".

Also why is it when a truther holds a debunker in checkmate about an issue that has yet to be resolved fully, the primary attack is base line tactics in verbal judo, throw your opponent off balance by skirting the issue?

This happens when a debunker attacks the credibility of a truther by reestablishing the fact that they are a conspiracy theorist and thereby must have a chemical imbalance in their brain. debunkers refrences include such favorites as (holographic planes,high speed UFOs,mini nukes planted inside the WTC tower, missiles on the planes and on and on).. In actuality only a small number of truthers actually believe what can only be described as the most outlandish of ideas.

It is that which is a conspiracy theory NOT a logical alternative.



I know that ATS has a very wide range of ideas and that's what makes it fantastic but a debuker shouldn't use every available resource on ATS as ammo against someone asking a legitimate question. 9/11 truthers cover a wide range of ideology and some of those ideas are indeed absurd, but having the ability to sift through the slag and pick out the most sound hypotheses from the list of ideas is what one should do.



For truthers,.. debunkers,... who are you trying to convince?

Present your information in a professional way illuminating people in a passive way.

I don't think this strategy of EXPLODING "truth on the world is working in favor of the truther.

Way to often I have seen some cheesy YOUTUBE video with words like (PROOF) and (NAIL IN COFFIN) in their titles.

Videos that were probably made by some zit faced 16 year old cutting and pasting erroneous crap from other websites while taking five minute breaks between posts to look at his fetish porn.

I have become a truther based on the (EVIDENCE) NOT( PROOF). Simply put if I were in a jury based on the evidence and how some of it was presented I am in favor of conspiracy. But their is not a whole lot of well presented evidence.



Don't mean to sound like I'm attacking anyone I honestly just want to see the opinions of others.



Sorry for the long post.

Please Comment:



Mod Edit: Changed title to reflect post

[edit on 7/15/08 by FredT]

Go back where you came from. We have all the Gov. trolls we need here. The Lords of the US. Gov. Have sent more then enogh of you. Hell we can tell just by when you became a member if your a troll.

Debunkers of any conspiracy theorists try to debunk conspiracy theories because they can't accept things that contradict their own already government-made opinion.

reply to post by Paul3


uhhhh......so why exactly am I a troll again?

reply to post by Frankidealist35


I assume it would be somthing like that though I would like to hear what a debunker has to say to rebut that claim.

i know nothing of gov't trolls nor do i care. i learn more through those of opposing positions than i do from those who are like minded. although i need the like minded for kinship, i still need the "debunkers" to keep me in check.

[edit on 15-7-2008 by justamomma]

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
Debunkers of any conspiracy theorists try to debunk conspiracy theories because they can't accept things that contradict their own already government-made opinion.

And conspiracy theorists try to prove conspiracy theories because they can't accept that they're dissatisfied with life and need something bigger than themselves to blame it on.

HA!
I figured as much, didnt want to say anything.
I can well imagine that many theorists find it easy to believe in something that makes the world mysterious so that it takes the edge off.
But what if you are happy in life with no one to blame and still come to the same conclusion, that something is foul?

reply to post by TheComte

And debunkers are completely satisfied with their lives so they must attack someone else for having an opinion about something causing distress in their life.

I would like to put myself in here for all sides.

I am both a truther and a debunker. I am a believer, I am a skeptic. It shouldn't be one person is one of these thing, more like all people should be all of these things.

When someone provides something that they believe to be factual, the are required to provide evidence of these said 'facts'. It is this person's job to look at thier own information as if they were a skeptic about it, decide what flaws there are in thier theory, possible explinations of these flaws.

For those trying to 'debunk' everything in sight.

Keep in mind that at one point in time people who thought the world was round were considered nutjobs. Secondly, be respectful to those making an attempt to provide information and evidence for thier information. Don't instantly put yourself on the defensive and shoot down all thier ideas with outrageous explianations.

Both parties should be placing themselves in a third party perspective and observe their own arguements from someone elses point of view. Provide your opinion, supported with facts in a calm and collective manner.

Last but not least, be intelligent and respectful!!!! Cannot stress this enough. Don't post rubbish like "chicken-man eats president" unless you have some seriously hardcore proof. Debunkers, it is ok to admit that you don't know what something is. I think that debunkers have a fear of being wrong, it's ok people, sometimes things happen that we can't explain, there is no shame in admitting you don't know what something is.

This is my input, if anyone has anything to add, go for it Lets keep ATS fair and balanced

reply to post by Xilvius


WOW.. Thanks Xilvius, that is exactly the answer I wanted to hear and the attitude I feel everyone should display, well put.

reply to post by Xilvius

I agree here with this post. Don't believe everything you hear/read. Don't disbelieve an idea just because it sounds silly to you. Believe what you think is true. And disbelieve what you believe to be false.

reply to post by Frankidealist35


That makes no sense. If someone is satisfied with their life why would they attack someone else who is in distress? If anything, they would try to help them.

I don't think you're a troll. I think you bring up legitimate questions. First, the labels..... "truther"/"debunker"..... almost begs one to fit into one arena or the other doesn't it? I reject that, and I kind of think you do too. What happened to finding out what really happened?

Okay, at this point, I am serruptitiously labeled "fence-sitter" haha!

I've looked at a lot of the evidence. Things that are posted almost always are slanted in one direction or another. Who are we trying to convince? An analogy: A long time ago, in a country where people watched television for entertainment, and worked their tails off for their children's future, perhaps enjoyed simple pleasures and fullfillments, we had a thing called news. It was NEVER the WHOLE news, but what it did portray was the action items of the previous day. It came on once a day, around the dinner hour. People tuned in to find out what happened. There might've been much that was not discussed, but it was reported with a sense of integrity. [insert wavy lines as we return to the present]. Today, I can watch seven different news feeds relational to the same story and arrive at at least three different conclusions. There is an active spin put on things. Not always, but often. This used to be called an editorial. We expected it to be controversial. That's entertainment.

So now, when we debate conspiracies, I think that much of the time, we envoke rhetoric and attempt to persuade, rather than to report. I miss the times when we sought the truth of a thing.

I have seen reports on facets of 9/11 that involved math and physics. I followed the math, made notes of my own. They were not flawed mathematics, but then the interpretation of those proofs..... we are lead into the trap by the bait of math, and once accepted, then told what it means. I find some of those things to be speculative, but put forth as proof. I almost want to petition that discussions surrounding 9/11 have the words "truth", "proof" and "fact" to be striken from the report.

Here's where things come apart. AX puts forth evidence toward their theory, and having compiled other items that resonate well or support the theory, they label it as "fact", and challenge BZ to refute it. That causes BZ to accept the validity of the theory in order to refute it, when really, AX has simply put forth a theory that has mislabeled it as fact. BZ siezes on a minor chink in the argument, and having provided evidence that supports that insignificant flaw, then labels the entire theory as "false" by having demonstrated a possible inconsistency.

It happens over and over again, ad naseum. When did it become more important to be right, than to find the truth? "DO YOUR RESEARCH".... I hear all the time..... often followed by an invective that is meant to infer that the individual is stupid for not having arrived at the same [mass] conclusion.

I offer a solution. Let a discussion ensue with a moderator [or arbitor, doesn't have to be a MOD], someone who is committed to being impartial, and also committed to enforcing previously agreed upon rules. Guidelines which are designed to keep the focal point on the logic, the evidence, and away from the personalities and hyperbole.

Why are most of us invested in one view or another? Is the previous question begging the question, making an assumption and rolling it into a conclusion? Perhaps so, but I think it's on the right track. I'm not avocating reducing 9/11 to a logic debate, but dammitall, most of what I see degrades into people sniping at each other, each thinking the other fools or demented, or...... my favorite slur..... "asleep". Wake UP! [and agree with me]. I think groups can do amazing things, the sum of the cognative thinking more than its parts, but group decisions are often nothing more than a vote, with the most votes being deemed "correct"...... or...... dare I say it? I dare...... "truthful".

The preceeding rant was an editorial. Thank you OP for the space.

I am just doing my part. ATS has provided me with more than a little bit of eye opening so to say. Its the least I can do to help keep things in balance. I have noticed as of late the issues between truthers and debunkers, so naturally I had to give an equallity speach

After all, we're all Third dimensional beings

reply to post by Xilvius


WEll said. While I was typing, you were posting I think you sum it up much more succinctly.

Cheers

Kudos are in order for you too as well argentus. I couldn't agree more on biased topics with keywords like "proof, truth, fact," these things imediatly should be deleted. Or in the least replaced with more accurate words such as "Opinion, Idea, Theory"

reply to post by TheComte

Debunkers would want to attack someone else who feels smaller than them to make them feel good. You know how the bully at school tries to be the big guy and make fun of the other person to boost their own self-esteem?

reply to post by argentus


Good point, to be honest I can't say for sure that all the information I get from 9/11 inside job talk is not just slanted to give truthers more credit.

I dont know what they may have cut out of interviews or what part of an official document they might leave out to pitch favor in thier direction.
I have to study for myself.

reply to post by Frankidealist35


Ya, I know what you mean. I submit to you that the bully grows up to be a conspiracy theorist. He tries to raise himself above others by claiming inside knowledge of secret events and then gets angry when people don't take him seriously. They say things like "keeping acting like sheeple, I know the truth", or my favourite, "the proof is right in front of you, open your eyes!"

[edit on 15-7-2008 by TheComte]