Political Crossfire Forums

[Enoch]

I usually avoid conspiracy theories, and those who espouse them, with extreme vigilance. However, recently, I have become more intrigued by the concept of “alternate” theories (to borrow the newly formed name of this forum).

After reading theories ranging from Bush personally planning 9/11 to a secret cabal of people controlling the world, I have come to two reasons why it is becoming increasingly difficult to take conspiracy theorists seriously.

First, it is often the case that conspiracy theorists lack the evidence, or at least desire to post evidence, regarding their claims. Numerous times disbelievers of these theories are met with criticism, if not downright fury, over requests for proof. Disbelievers get responses like “I just provided you all the proof you need,” when that “proof” is little more than opinion with NO evidence, or even an outside source sometimes. We are expected to take the opinion of these theorists at face value, and are accused of being brainwashed or lazy if we say that we want proof.

Second, there is a disturbing trend among some conspiracy theorists to ask the disbeliever to disprove the theories presented. “Prove to me that 9/11 wasn’t a government plot” (to quote the infamous $1 million 9/11 challenge.) Ah, herein lies a problem. It is a poorly constructed rhetorical fallacy to ask someone to disprove an unproven theory. It is well known that you can not prove a negative. For example, I could ask someone to prove that I did not have a green bike when I was a kid. But, how can someone do that? And, more appropriately, is it really the job of the skeptic to do so? It is MY responsibility, if I am saying that I did have a green bike as a child, to prove my claim. It is not YOUR responsibility to disprove my claim. The person postulating that 9/11 was a government plot, or that a cabal of powerful people control the world, is under the obligation to prove their claim.

So, my question to all present is this: At what point should a reasonably intelligent person entertain “alternate” theories presented? Should this happen simply based on someone’s speculation? Or, rather, should there be a reasonable expectation to back up one’s theories with data and support, and not just opinions (either their own or others)?

[Revenant]

Fight the truth if you will.

[psholtz]

Enoch wrote: So, my question to all present is this: At what point should a reasonably intelligent person entertain “alternate” theories presented? Should this happen simply based on someone’s speculation? Or, rather, should there be a reasonable expectation to back up one’s theories with data and support, and not just opinions (either their own or others)?
The government's theory on just about *anything* is an alternate, conspiracy theory.

I can't believe you call yourself a "Libertarian" and yet you trust your government and believe everything it says.

[Enoch]

psholtz wrote: Enoch wrote: So, my question to all present is this: At what point should a reasonably intelligent person entertain “alternate” theories presented? Should this happen simply based on someone’s speculation? Or, rather, should there be a reasonable expectation to back up one’s theories with data and support, and not just opinions (either their own or others)?
The government's theory on just about *anything* is an alternate, conspiracy theory.

I can't believe you call yourself a "Libertarian" and yet you trust your government and believe everything it says. Please show me where I said that I trust everything the government says. What I did say, before you decided to be sarcastic instead of actually answering my post, was that I find difficulty trusting conspiracy theorists who offer nothing more than speculation.

[citizen_X]

Same goes with gov't BS buddy, NEXT

[letfreedomring]

See Enoch, these people just showed you how correct you are. In typical Psholtz fashion, he just skirted around the entire discussion.

I apt not to believe any of them until they showed concrete proofs, which they have not ever shown. I usually do NOT entertain alternate theories until someone shows some resemblance of fact. But Psholtz would have you believe in these theories, because according to him, the government always lies.

[The Comrade]

skirted around questions is such an ugly term.


i think he would appreciate it more if you used skipped, or hopped.

[Enoch]

letfreedomring wrote: See Enoch, these people just showed you how correct you are. In typical Psholtz fashion, he just skirted around the entire discussion.

I apt not to believe any of them until they showed concrete proofs, which they have not ever shown. I usually do NOT entertain alternate theories until someone shows some resemblance of fact. But Psholtz would have you believe in these theories, because according to him, the government always lies. I know. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. None of them bothered to actually address the post. Instead they deflected on to the government, or saying I don't want to know the truth.

[letfreedomring]

The Comrade wrote: skirted around questions is such an ugly term.


i think he would appreciate it more if you used skipped, or hopped.

whatever :roll:

[Claudia Schiffer]

This is just one more attempt to discredit the conspiracy theory. If you don't believe in a conspiracy, why do you care? Go watch a movie or something... But if you're honnest well tell me how come no steel structure ever collapse due to fire before, but on 911 3 building did? Why? Now I'm sure you have apreparded answer for the 2 towers but how about WT7? What happened to it? Let's have a look:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9184329400593634920&q=label%3Azionism

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7082804592890872932&q=label%3Azionism

Now on this video you can see how fare WT7 was from the 2 towers, so could not have been really damaged by the towers. And even if it did, it was nothing compare to the Oklahoma city building which had about 1/3 blown out and was still standing. Now it's been establish that steel framed building do not collapse due to fire so we can rull that out. So what made it collapse then? D'ont forget that WT7 collapse a nearly free fall speed so why did it collapse other than by control demolition? First of all, are you at least willing to admit that it looks exactly like a controle demolition??? Are you willing to admit that? Because if you don't, I'm wasting my time.

Now here you have Larry Sylversteen who knew WT7 was gonna collaspe, which is rather stranger considering that this has never happened before...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNEoiOP76QQ&mode=related&search=

And here we have Mr. Gulliani who was told in advance it was gonna collapse. How did he know that since it has never happended before?
Now I'm sorry but the sound of the video mysteriously mute when he pronounce the word collapse...Isn't that strange? I'm sure you will understand what he's trying to say...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2005/090405gotwarning.htm

Here on this page you can download the same video where you can hear the famous word :wink:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_giuliani.html

And here you have plenty of people who heard secondary explosions

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/9-11_wtc_videos.html

Anyway, i could go on for at least a week but it should be enough to start. but i fail to see the point if you don't believe in conspiracies.

[Enoch]

Claudia Schiffer wrote: This is just one more attempt to discredit the conspiracy theory. If you don't believe in a conspiracy, why do you care? Go watch a movie or something... But if you're honnest well tell me how come no steel structure ever collapse due to fire before, but on 911 3 building did? Why? Now I'm sure you have apreparded answer for the 2 towers but how about WT7? What happened to it? Let's have a look:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9184329400593634920&q=label%3Azionism

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7082804592890872932&q=label%3Azionism

Now on this video you can see how fare WT7 was from the 2 towers, so could not have been really damaged by the towers. And even if it did, it was nothing compare to the Oklahoma city building which had about 1/3 blown out and was still standing. Now it's been establish that steel framed building do not collapse due to fire so we can rull that out. So what made it collapse then? D'ont forget that WT7 collapse a nearly free fall speed so why did it collapse other than by control demolition? First of all, are you at least willing to admit that it looks exactly like a controle demolition??? Are you willing to admit that? Because if you don't, I'm wasting my time.

Now here you have Larry Sylversteen who knew WT7 was gonna collaspe, which is rather stranger considering that this has never happened before...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNEoiOP76QQ&mode=related&search=

And here we have Mr. Gulliani who was told in advance it was gonna collapse. How did he know that since it has never happended before?
Now I'm sorry but the sound of the video mysteriously mute when he pronounce the word collapse...Isn't that strange? I'm sure you will understand what he's trying to say...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2005/090405gotwarning.htm

Here on this page you can download the same video where you can hear the famous word :wink:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_giuliani.html

And here you have plenty of people who heard secondary explosions

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/9-11_wtc_videos.html

Anyway, i could go on for at least a week but it should be enough to start. but i fail to see the point if you don't believe in conspiracies. Thank you for providing those links, and I will take a look at them when time permits (which, unfortunately, is not now).

However, I think you missed the point of my post. I was not asking that evidence of any one theory be provided here. I was commenting on the general attitude displayed by some conspiracy theorists, and posing a question of when a reasonably intelligent person should be expected to enterain a theory. Is it inappropriate for someone to request proof or should the opinions of a conspiracy theorist be enough?

Now, do you have an answer for that question.

Oh, and one more thing, I never said I don't believe in conspiracies. I said I don't trust conspiracy theorists who refuse to provide evidence to their claims. There is quite a difference.

[letfreedomring]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now here you have Larry Sylversteen who knew WT7 was gonna collaspe, which is rather stranger considering that this has never happened before...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNEoiOP76QQ&mode=related&search=
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just because something never happened before, doesn't mean that it can't

And here we have Mr. Gulliani who was told in advance it was gonna collapse. How did he know that since it has never happended before?
Now I'm sorry but the sound of the video mysteriously mute when he pronounce the word collapse...Isn't that strange? I'm sure you will understand what he's trying to say...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2005/090405gotwarning.htm

Which collapse was he referring to? WTC7? after the collapse of WTC 1 and 2, there's no doubt that people would take the precaution

Here on this page you can download the same video where you can hear the famous word

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_giuliani.html

And here you have plenty of people who heard secondary explosions

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/9-11_wtc_videos.html

What does this proves? do you know what was in that building other than explosives that could have cause the explosions? How about emergency generators? how about gas water heaters or gas lines in the building? But no, the conspiracy theorists would have us to believe that high explosives could be the only cause.....oh and by the way, where were these supposed explosives placed? the basement? or high above as some have said? just can't seem to make up their mind.

oops...sorry for the thread hijack.

[PeterX]

letfreedomring wrote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now here you have Larry Sylversteen who knew WT7 was gonna collaspe, which is rather stranger considering that this has never happened before...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNEoiOP76QQ&mode=related&search=
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just because something never happened before, doesn't mean that it can't

Agreed. However, for something which has never happened before to happen to three buildings on the same day in the same vicinity is pretty unique.

And here we have Mr. Gulliani who was told in advance it was gonna collapse. How did he know that since it has never happended before?
Now I'm sorry but the sound of the video mysteriously mute when he pronounce the word collapse...Isn't that strange? I'm sure you will understand what he's trying to say...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2005/090405gotwarning.htm

Which collapse was he referring to? WTC7? after the collapse of WTC 1 and 2, there's no doubt that people would take the precaution

Here on this page you can download the same video where you can hear the famous word

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_giuliani.html

And here you have plenty of people who heard secondary explosions

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/9-11_wtc_videos.html

What does this proves? do you know what was in that building other than explosives that could have cause the explosions? How about emergency generators? how about gas water heaters or gas lines in the building? But no, the conspiracy theorists would have us to believe that high explosives could be the only cause.....oh and by the way, where were these supposed explosives placed? the basement? or high above as some have said? just can't seem to make up their mind.

oops...sorry for the thread hijack.

Firemen on the day reported that there were bombs in the building and told people to move away.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-4574366633014832928&q=fireman+bombs+911

[PeterX]

In response to the question posed by the OP, no, it isn't wrong to ask for proof of any claims which are being made by conspiracy theorists. Any rational, thinking person should do this automatically.

Any conspiracy theorist worth his or her salt should be only too happy to provide information which will back up their claims, it is by being able to present as much evidence as possible that we sometimes bring other people into what we believe is the light.

[Patriot911]

PeterX wrote: In response to the question posed by the OP, no, it isn't wrong to ask for proof of any claims which are being made by conspiracy theorists. Any rational, thinking person should do this automatically.

Any conspiracy theorist worth his or her salt should be only too happy to provide information which will back up their claims, it is by being able to present as much evidence as possible that we sometimes bring other people into what we believe is the light.

Yet every request for proof has been denied by the conspiracy theorists. Oh sure we've gotten lots of opinion, conjecture, bad science and outright lies, but zero proof. If you have some, I sure would like to see it.

[Patriot911]

PeterX wrote: letfreedomring wrote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now here you have Larry Sylversteen who knew WT7 was gonna collaspe, which is rather stranger considering that this has never happened before...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNEoiOP76QQ&mode=related&search=
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just because something never happened before, doesn't mean that it can't

Agreed. However, for something which has never happened before to happen to three buildings on the same day in the same vicinity is pretty unique.

And here we have Mr. Gulliani who was told in advance it was gonna collapse. How did he know that since it has never happended before?
Now I'm sorry but the sound of the video mysteriously mute when he pronounce the word collapse...Isn't that strange? I'm sure you will understand what he's trying to say...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2005/090405gotwarning.htm

Which collapse was he referring to? WTC7? after the collapse of WTC 1 and 2, there's no doubt that people would take the precaution

Here on this page you can download the same video where you can hear the famous word

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_giuliani.html

And here you have plenty of people who heard secondary explosions

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/9-11_wtc_videos.html

What does this proves? do you know what was in that building other than explosives that could have cause the explosions? How about emergency generators? how about gas water heaters or gas lines in the building? But no, the conspiracy theorists would have us to believe that high explosives could be the only cause.....oh and by the way, where were these supposed explosives placed? the basement? or high above as some have said? just can't seem to make up their mind.

oops...sorry for the thread hijack.

Firemen on the day reported that there were bombs in the building and told people to move away.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-4574366633014832928&q=fireman+bombs+911

There was a lot of misinformation going around that day. Everything from reports of bombs, to cars loaded with bombs to more planes coming in.

If there really were bombs that someone found, why haven't they come forward to tell the world there really were bombs? If you lost 300 of your fellow co-workers who you are very close to, wouldn't you want to expose the truth if you thought someone in your own government had killed them? Yet nobody is coming forward to say they saw bombs or even to say they think there were bombs. Why is that?

[Otacon]

Paul doesn't actually prove anything, he just spits out random bulls**t and avoids the issue. Oh, and don't worry about him attacking you for saying your Libertarian, he's done the same to me.

[Otacon]

Oh, and Claudia, if you think that Larry Sylversteen would openly admit to knowing beforehand about 9/11, then I must say that you are easily fooled. The government wouldn't dare let this guy say such if was true.

[Medius]

Enoch wrote: I usually avoid conspiracy theories, and those who espouse them, with extreme vigilance. However, recently, I have become more intrigued by the concept of “alternate” theories (to borrow the newly formed name of this forum).

After reading theories ranging from Bush personally planning 9/11 to a secret cabal of people controlling the world, I have come to two reasons why it is becoming increasingly difficult to take conspiracy theorists seriously.

First, it is often the case that conspiracy theorists lack the evidence, or at least desire to post evidence, regarding their claims. Numerous times disbelievers of these theories are met with criticism, if not downright fury, over requests for proof. Disbelievers get responses like “I just provided you all the proof you need,” when that “proof” is little more than opinion with NO evidence, or even an outside source sometimes. We are expected to take the opinion of these theorists at face value, and are accused of being brainwashed or lazy if we say that we want proof.

Second, there is a disturbing trend among some conspiracy theorists to ask the disbeliever to disprove the theories presented. “Prove to me that 9/11 wasn’t a government plot” (to quote the infamous $1 million 9/11 challenge.) Ah, herein lies a problem. It is a poorly constructed rhetorical fallacy to ask someone to disprove an unproven theory. It is well known that you can not prove a negative. For example, I could ask someone to prove that I did not have a green bike when I was a kid. But, how can someone do that? And, more appropriately, is it really the job of the skeptic to do so? It is MY responsibility, if I am saying that I did have a green bike as a child, to prove my claim. It is not YOUR responsibility to disprove my claim. The person postulating that 9/11 was a government plot, or that a cabal of powerful people control the world, is under the obligation to prove their claim.

So, my question to all present is this: At what point should a reasonably intelligent person entertain “alternate” theories presented? Should this happen simply based on someone’s speculation? Or, rather, should there be a reasonable expectation to back up one’s theories with data and support, and not just opinions (either their own or others)?

To answer your question, I believe that one should always entertain alternate theories. Acceptance of such a theory is another matter entirely. I myself tended towards disbelief of conspiracy theories, however, in entertaining them I have found what I believe to be a severe flaw in our current system of governance. The flaw isn't the existance of a conspiracy but rather the possibility that a conspiracy may exist.

Our government has become very secretive and over the years has clearly shown that they are hiding information from the public. While the underlying information may not point to a conspiracy, it very well could and we would have no way of knowing. For a government to remain healthy and representative, you must have skepticism on many different levels. Naturally, you are going to have people that believe the government is hiding things even when they are fully forthcoming (that proving a negative bit). With the events of 9/11 however, you have a new situation where it is clear that the government is not being forthcoming and is blocking a lot of information from general consumption.

Now, many people will say that National Security is important and thus secrets must be kept. I personally disagree that national secrets should expand beyond direct military operations, but even acceptance of this doesn't clarify why the government is withholding information that seems to pertain only to the physical happenings and not the intelligence work surrounding the events.

This is what has caused this new wave of doubters. I for one, will entertain any of their theories in the hope that the facts can be compiled to create enough distrust to invoke change. The larger and more closed the government becomes, the greater the chance that someday, someone will come along and abuse the system and destroy our way of life.

Sure it is easy to say that the government isn't some big bad evil that wants to destroy our lives. The question is, what happens tomorrow? What happens in ten, twenty, a hundred years when someone comes along with just the right amount of charisma and insanity to warp the system into a totalitarian regime?

So yes, as an intellectual thinker and a reasoning person, I will entertain any theory. I will then research and find those facts that have backing and attempt to find any reasonable and plausible scenario that will bring enough people around to see that the government needs to be checked and put back in line with the constitution. As a reasonable person I cannot discount the idea that our government has been taken over by some dark conspiracy since I cannot prove otherwise. That is not to say I accept such a theory, but I will not discount it. I will allow that possibility to enter into my critical thought process when looking at our government and what it is capable of doing to we the people.

[psholtz]

Claudia Schiffer wrote: If you don't believe in a conspiracy, why do you care?
That's what I'm wondering..