You Know You Are A Conspiracy Theorist If...

[chuckcrj]

Hmmm... While GA has more or less let the 911 truthers thingy go... (still thinks the govt is culpable)... How about lets shift this discussion to conspiracies the govt HAS been involved in? Lots of times the govt has been found to be guilty of perpetrating things which are definitely WRONG and even criminal... can you say 'Fast and Furious' just for one?

And lets not forget that guy who ran the FBI for decades who had an incriminating file on every president he served under.

GA's position on this whole thing is: The public should be viewing the govt with suspicion EVERY TIME there is any question... rather than giving them the benefit of the doubt. It is proven govts are nothing more than a collection of humans who are power mongers, who already have a history of lieing, cheating, extorting, manipulating, and even murdering when it is convenient... to promote their influence and fortune.

As a society, we hate them when they run a business... yet as soon as they are elected to public office; somehow their attitudes and behavior is all of a sudden perfect... and all past sins are forgotten. Wake up folks... they are the same scoundrels... just with MORE power... power to take YOUR $$$ and use it to promote their careers. The difference is: In private business they can be held accountable... seems when they get to govt they are immune from responsibility... and we think we will get a fair and honest deal under these jerks? Wake up folks.

Sheesh... and folks wonder why voting should be restricted... DUH

Your statement that the US government is culpable, in some degree, in the wtc attack, I agree with. I believe they likely had enough intelligence info to stop it. It is simply impossible for them to have planned and executed the job without someone leaking enough to eventually bring it into the open.

[jtrammel]

Your posting in the third person is getting a bit creepy......I'm just saying.....

You didn't use to post in the third person. Have you been taken over by aliens or been given liberal hormone shots or something?

Same here...lol

[scrogdog]

The leap you are making is that we should not consider something to be real unless we first have science study it and come to a unanimous conclusion that it is a fact. But something can be very real and not yet be studied by science.

Science wants to be the governing authority on who tells us what is real. They like to use the word ‘fact” to mean “real”, but as you have pointed out, they are two very different things. Something can be very real and not yet be a fact. Real supersedes fact, not the other way around.

In your above example, if one hundred scientists were taken aboard a spacecraft, each shown a ray gun, were allowed to shoot it, study its effects, and each had the same experience with it, but were given nothing to bring back to earth to show their fellow scientists, their experience would not prove the existence of a superior species among us. Science would say since there are no facts to the case there is nothing real to the case, but that is a leap. It would raise the probability of their experience being real even though it was not proven as scientific fact.

How this applies to Building 7 is that missing evidence cannot provide facts. I’m not saying there was a conspiracy but someone knows that missing evidence will suppress factual evidence. When that is done you get scientists to say what you are saying and poo-poo any conclusion other than the mundane.

You say a lot but say nothing at the same time.

A lot of times we say something is a fact in a colloquial sense, but that is not the same as the scientific standard of fact. If you don't believe me, perhaps you will believe Nobel Prize Winner Stephen Gould who said "in science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withold provisional assent'".

True, there are philosophical things which cannot be observed that are not subject to scietific inquiry simply because they present nothing tangible in the real world.

Fact trumps ASSUMED reality in every case, unless you would like to attempt to demonstrate that the moon does not exist (or similar mutually observable self-evident thing). Further, facts are not things we conclude. Please tell us how you had to CONCLUDE that the moon exists? You didn't. You saw it, and you know everyone else sees it. No conclusions needed to be reached.

You saw the moon and then CONCULDED it must exist? lol

Besides, evidence is evidence, fact are facts, and should not be confused with one another. Evidence is that which we use to build a case for belief. It is NOT how we establish fact, because evidence can have multiple interpretations of what it means. That's why scientific theories are also not facts. They are explanations which have been repeatedly confirmed by experiement, however.

Again, quite a number of scientists have written papers on several things about WTC on 9/11. NOT ONE OF THEM required debris. Not one.

Again, there are also multiple examples of this in history such as the aforementioned shuttle accident report.

In short, you hardly addressed ANY of my points! Hmmmmm....

Sorry, but I seem to detect a pattern emerging.

[ga-hvac-tech]

Your posting in the third person is getting a bit creepy......I'm just saying.....

You didn't use to post in the third person. Have you been taken over by aliens or been given liberal hormone shots or something?

Actually, neither... Rather I (GA) have learned to not make my thoughts simply about me.

I perceive that stepping back and seeing things as a 'third person' view seems to give GA a better perspective... rather than I this or I that.

Third person view: Generally defined as a person writing a book or telling a story about themselves, yet through the eyes of a different person than themselves.

So why take a third person view? Simple: Taking 'me' out of the picture allows the view to be more balanced, most importantly not being swayed by my personal short-comings.

It is easy to see whether one is thinking, or spouting off, or parroting... simply by how much of themselves is in what they say.

Yet here is the most important thing: It really is NOT about me... part of growing up in GA's opinion is to learn that simple reality.

[ga-hvac-tech]

Your statement that the US government is culpable, in some degree, in the wtc attack, I agree with. I believe they likely had enough intelligence info to stop it. It is simply impossible for them to have planned and executed the job without someone leaking enough to eventually bring it into the open.

So this raises the question...

If the govt knew it was gonna happen... why did they not stop it?
What reason was there which was important enough to allow close to 3000 American citizens to be murdered, to destroy the buildings, and destroy that level of records of business and govt activity? Unless someone (or many someones) would profit or not be held accountable for; something or somethings...

This is a question which John Stossel or perhaps all of Fox (Or most importantly ALL OF AMERICA) should be DEMANDING answers to... However we know it will never happen as long as any of those folks who profited or were vindicated, or their spouses, are alive.

[scrogdog]

I believe they likely had enough intelligence info to stop it.

If I may comment on this with attempting to invalidate it (as some seem to think I am doing).

History presents us many, many potential conspiracies. Did the president have prior knowledge to the attack on Pearl Harbor? Was the dropping of two bombs on Japan necessary to win the war, or was it more about sending a message to the Soviets?

It is tough to imagine either of these things becoming "fact" even in a colloquial sense. No matter what is argued from either side.

In addition, neither of these ideas are subject to scientific inquiry. Once one, say a CTer (and I know you are not one and have supported the case of science) figures out WHY, then the whole tempo and purpose of this discussion would most definitely change.

Again, evidence builds a case for BELIEF and has nothing to do with facts.

[scrogdog]

If the govt knew it was gonna happen... why did they not stop it?

If true that the President had foreknowledge that Pearl Harbor was to be attacked, can you think of no valid reason that he let it slide?

Not saying it's true, or was the right thing to do IF true, mind you.

[ga-hvac-tech]

If true that the President had foreknowledge that Pearl Harbor was to be attacked, can you think of no valid reason that he let it slide?

Not saying it's true, or was the right thing to do IF true, mind you.

A discussion about Pearl Harbor is a whole-nother story... many believe FDR knew and let it happen for one or another reason... a short googling will give lots of reasons.

Fact still remains: Why are these questions not asked? Seems whether a polecat cheats on his wife (with or without her knowing) is more important in the media than whether or not a polecat starts a war or allows the murder of close to 3000 citizens... IMO it does not take a rocket scientist to see there is something wrong there.

[royc]

I agree that in theory a 9/11 type conspiracy could happen here. I could even see an interesting movie being made about it. Where a bunch of top level government officials were behind the whole thing. And there was one guy, maybe Tom Cruise who knew the truth and they were trying to kill him before he exposed them. But in reality I dont believe that a conspiracy of this mangitude could be covered up in our country. There might be some loose ends or debatable issues but the bottom line is even if the government wanted to perpetrate it,They could never pull it off. Too many people would of had to be in on it and it would of leaked out all over the place.

http://rense.com/general95/why_dev.html


Roy

[Brian GC]

True, there are philosophical things which cannot be observed that are not subject to scientific inquiry simply because they present nothing tangible in the real world.

No. There are tangible things which cannot be observed that are not subject to scientific inquiry simply because they cannot get their hands on it. Therefore they draw conclusions from that lack of information.

Fact trumps ASSUMED reality in every case…

That is what science wants us to believe, but it is not so. The lack of fact, which in the case of 100 scientists not coming back with anything to validate their experience, would not trump assumed reality. It may not close the book on ET’s but it would indeed affect assumed reality.

Facts just happen to be the data and conclusions we have reached so far. It does not dictate reality. There is far more that is real than has been examined on a scientist’s table.

Again, quite a number of scientists have written papers on several things about WTC on 9/11. NOT ONE OF THEM required debris. Not one.

But debris would illuminate, validate or discredit their findings.

Again, there are also multiple examples of this in history such as the aforementioned shuttle accident report.

The shuttle disaster was not just witnessed. It had audio, telemetry and black box data as well as wreckage to examine.

[RoBoTeq]

Your statement that the US government is culpable, in some degree, in the wtc attack, I agree with. I believe they likely had enough intelligence info to stop it. It is simply impossible for them to have planned and executed the job without someone leaking enough to eventually bring it into the open.

Culpable is a good term to use. With all the money we spend on so called "intelligence", our government agencies certainly should have been able to detect signs that forces were plotting against us.

[glennac]

Culpable is a good term to use. With all the money we spend on so called "intelligence", our government agencies certainly should have been able to detect signs that forces were plotting against us.

True there robo but lets narrow it down a little. IMO the liberal Democrats in Congress hold most of the blame for the intelligence let down.

They passed legislation forbidding our intelligence agencies from sharing information. The CIA couldn't talk to the FBI, NSA, etc. Thank you, thank you very much

[scrogdog]

No. There are tangible things which cannot be observed that are not subject to scientific inquiry simply because they cannot get their hands on it. Therefore they draw conclusions from that lack of information.

No, science DOES NOT make conclusions about things UNLESS they are trying to explain a FACT. That's what science does, it explains fact. Even then, it requires a repeatable test to draw conclusions FROM. Science does NOTHING with a lack of information. That is not to say that a scientist cannot venture an opinion, even an unsupported one, outside the realm of science.

But we've already gone over all that. Carl Sagan appearing on Johnny Carson is NOT science. Sorry.

Please point us all to the scientific white paper that draws the types of conclusions you describe. Of course, we all know you will not do this as your debating style seems to be make bold assertions and then do NOTHING to back them up.

That is what science wants us to believe, but it is not so. The lack of fact, which in the case of 100 scientists not coming back with anything to validate their experience, would not trump assumed reality. It may not close the book on ET’s but it would indeed affect assumed reality.

What? You don't even read the science, understand what a fact is, know what the scientific method is (apparently) but now YOU judge what is valid?

You, sir, are out to lunch. What you've just said is, at best, innaccurate, at worst, utterly foolish and uninformed.

Facts just happen to be the data and conclusions we have reached so far. It does not dictate reality. There is far more that is real than has been examined on a scientist’s table.

Again, facts are NOT CONCLUDED. Logic also says that as well as science. Basically, you don't know what you are talking about, so I am forced to call GARBAGE. Let's see some source that supports this ridiculous contention. I have plenty on my side, but of course, it is useless to post them as YOU WILL NOT READ THEM.

But debris would illuminate, validate or discredit their findings.

According to you, one who thinks that facts are concluded. Science has NEVER needed debris to conduct accident reports before, and for many other disasters besides the shuttle. Now, all of a sudden we do because you say so?

It is to laugh, as they say.

The shuttle disaster was not just witnessed. It had audio, telemetry and black box data as well as wreckage to examine.

Yep, and WTC and building 7 have floor plans, combustion science, progressive collapse science and the laws of physics. It's been explained, modeled and reviewed by hundreds of thousands of scientists who have not said in peer review "where's the debris"?

I can see the problem you have with science quite clearly. Only someone that thinks facts are that which he WISHES were true could possibly use these line of illogical arguments.

So, we come full circle to my friend Joe says the Zombie Apocalypse is coming. RUN!

That has as much rationality, fact and logic to it as anything you've presented. That you cannot see that makes describing what facts and science are pretty pointless. Of course, you could also try reading any one of a billion BASIC science texts. But you won't.

Again, this is middle school stuff, what science is, what its purpose is, what a fact is, what a theory is, what the methods are... is not some hard to understand esoteric science that you need to get your science dictionary out to understand.

MIDDLE SCHOOL SCIENCE!