Popular Mechanics - Debunking 911 myths

Originally posted by Apoc
I'm all for a good conspiracy but I get the feeling many on this site are backwards on who needs to prove what. It is the espouser of a conspiracy's job to PROVE the conspiracy, not others job to DISPROVE the conspiracy. It's falty logic and intellectually bankrupt.

Then you should prove the government's conspiracy theory.

After all, what OBL allegedly did would have been quite a conspiracy. Involved a group of people. You know. A conspiracy.

And the government has a theory, and the theory is that OBL did it. That's their conspiracy theory.

So just put your money where your mouth is and get crackin' on some proof that OBL was behind it.

Of course we question and not blindly follow whatever the powers that be piece meal to us. But, you can't just blindy say "I disagree" because I don't like the politics of the source. Look at Serpo, conspiracy theorists want so hard to believe in something esoteric that Ockham's Razor isn't even on the radar.

I've read many of the counter theories to 9/11 WTC and the pentagon attacks. None of them hold any more credibility than the original gov. reports (in my opinion).

Conspiracy is the antagonist against a put-forth idea. It's antagonist's role is to debunk, not the originator's responsibility to debunk the conspiracy. This antagonistist debunking must be based on solid evidence. Otherwise it's just adolescent political rambling.

[edit on 8-3-2006 by Apoc]

[edit on 8-3-2006 by Apoc]

Originally posted by Apoc
Of course we question and not blindly follow whatever the powers that be piece meal to us. But, you can't just blindy say "I disagree" because I don't like the politics of the source.

Nothing to do with politics. I honestly don't know wtf you are on about here. Those videos are demonstrably fake.

When you see objecting to blatant lies as objecting to politics then you should question wtf you are on about in the first place here, because you apparently already understand that we are lied to on a regular basis. And yet you suggest they need no substantial proof other than to utter a word, because they are in power.

Look at Serpo, conspiracy theorists want so hard to believe in something esoteric that Ockham's Razor isn't even on the radar.

Please demonstrate objectively for me what the comparison here is between 9/11 and Serpo. Also demonstrate how Ockham's Razor includes disregarding facts when coming to the simplest conclusion, because I always thought it was the simplest conclusion possible, not just the simplest conclusion period. Otherwise the Earth would still be flat, because that's much simpler.

I've read many of the counter theories to 9/11 WTC and the pentagon attacks. None of them hold any more credibility than the original gov. reports (in my opinion).

Please demonstrate how this is so, and afterwards, describe how this qualifies the government report to automatically become legitimate (with something other than 'they're the government so they're automatically right until shown otherwise').

Conspiracy is the antagonist against a put-forth idea.

No; conspiracy is when a group of people conspire to do something, especially when it's against the law.

Conspiracy does not mean conspiracy theory. The reason you think these are the same is because you are conditioned. Congrats. If you don't believe me use a dictionary.

It's antagonist's role is to debunk, not the originator's responsibility to debunk the conspiracy. This antagonistist debunking must be based on solid evidence. Otherwise it's just adolescent political rambling.

Fortunately enough, not many people share your trust in the ruling bodies, or the lack of logic or whatever you could call this. Debunking NIST, for example, is like trying to prove a negative; they don't even offer any evidence for what they're saying, so what is there to debunk? Speculation? Again, that's like proving a negative. The same for the OBL theory in general. The tapes can be debunked but the actual link to al Qaeda, not so much. So how are we supposed to prove a negative wrong exactly?

It's absolutely insane that you suggest they don't need evidence to be believed. And it's clear you don't understand the issue at hand when you suggest first proving a negative before continuing with an alternate view of the events, which make more sense anyway.

In fact, I'd rather not even get into this discussion with you because you are obviously not interested in contributing anything original or of any value here. You can look through other threads here.