It's not a conspiracy

[s1k3sT]

Lolol, sorry I had to post in this thread again because of that.

So you don't like to speculate but yet you support the theory that the Government blew up the buildings. What is that theory based on? Speculation.

If you didn't want to speculate on what happened, you wouldn't have made this thread. But, yet, you did.

Goodbye now.

I never made this thread to debate 9/11 theories, I made it to discuss the 1984 type meaning of the term conspiracy theory. Go ahead and look at my original post.

Us "truthers" don't like to speculate, we are just saying we don't believe the official speculation. Not many "truthers" believe it was done by "the government", it is a few select members of the government.

[.Markus]

History channel has a show on about it right now, watch below. Pretty much tells us what we all have said here, that s1k3sT is waaaay wrong

http://www.liveleak....=4ad_1189406252

Very interesting video!

[s1k3sT]

The phrase I gave you before, "Take care of him" can mean to murder someone. In no way can you get the concept of killing someone using that phrase, since care means to help or nurture, yet it does mean the opposite of what it says.

Here's another one I found:

"Tell me about it"

'Oh, there go those truthers, spouting off nonsense again. Yeah, tell me about it.'

Tell - to express in words. Yet, I'm saying, I already know, you don't have to express it in words.

Basically, 'conspiracy theory' by most definitions is a shortened version of 'crackpot conspiracy theory with no basis in reality'.

And since you're trying to discredit the hundreds of experts who spent countless hours putting together what happened on 9/11 by deliberately misusing a modern English term is an exercise in puerility that I won't entertain any further.

Good day to you, sir.

I'm not try to discredit the "experts", they did that themselves. I'm childish for understanding the doublethink meanings of our language?! The cognitive dissonance is astounding! LOL, whatever...

Your phrase "take care of him" isn't the same! The meaning of the phrase can have opposite meanings, while with conspiracy theory the meaning of the term itself is the opposite of the words that make it up. Close, but NOT the same thing.

[s1k3sT]

History channel has a show on about it right now, watch below. Pretty much tells us what we all have said here, that s1k3sT is waaaay wrong

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4ad_1189406252

LOL, a video can prove you right but there is no way a video could prove me right, right?! LOL, good stuff...

I could link to an insane amount of videos, just say the word.

[.Markus]

LOL, a video can prove you right but there is no way a video could prove me right, right?! LOL, good stuff...

I could link to an insane amount of videos, just say the word.

I'd be happy to watch a video response to the above mentioned documentary, or similar.

[Joe User]

I'm not try to discredit the "experts", they did that themselves.

Thank you, please drive through.

[s1k3sT]

I'd be happy to watch a video response to the above mentioned documentary, or similar.

Well, I was trying to see what they say in that video so I could post a response but it annoyed me that they only refer to us "truthers" as conspiracy theorists. What about the fact that the official story itself is a conspiracy theory as well? In other words the video is biased crap.

[Phenom II]

LOL, a video can prove you right but there is no way a video could prove me right, right?! LOL, good stuff...

I could link to an insane amount of videos, just say the word.

Lol the more of those videos I am watching, the more it is convincing me that indeed it was an inside job, the "Experts" answers are just dismissing, not like the "Conspiracy Theorists" where they at least have good reasoning behind their theory's

[hdood]

I don't think you really are interested in what others have to say on the topic, s1k3sT, but okay, I'll chime in.

Yes, fanatics conspired to attack the US. They carried out the attack. The "official story" documents this conspiracy, the attack itself, and the aftermath. So?

You seem to just want tell other people that you don't think like the current definition of the term "conspiracy theory," and that you would like to instead redefine it to mean "scientific theory about a conspiracy." Fair enough, but it doesn't change the fact that this is not what the term means at present.

What is the point here? If you redefine "conspiracy theory" in the way I describe above, then the alternative explanations aren't theories at all. In fact, they aren't really even hypotheses. So what have you accomplished with this redefinition? Nothing that I can see. If you actually meant theory as in the normal everyday meaning of the word, then the "official story" is not a theory, because it is backed up by large amounts of evidence.

Really, what is it you're hoping to accomplish here? It seems like you're trying to make it sound like the "official story" is just unfounded speculation. Is that your goal? If so, you'd have to actually show how, something you've so far utterly failed in doing.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

Well, I was trying to see what they say in that video so I could post a response but it annoyed me that they only refer to us "truthers" as conspiracy theorists. What about the fact that the official story itself is a conspiracy theory as well? In other words the video is biased crap.

Lol the more of those videos I am watching, the more it is convincing me that indeed it was an inside job, the "Experts" answers are just dismissing, not like the "Conspiracy Theorists" where they at least have good reasoning behind their theory's

One of the better articles in debunking 9/11 conspiracy's was written by Popular Mechanics. It debunks everything from the controlled detonations of WTC 7 to a cruise missiles hitting the Pentagon.

Here is a homework assignment for you two. Read the Popular Mechanics and try to debunk their debunks. I've posted the link to the article(s) to make it easier for you. Now...go forth and debunk! :woot:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Vc8DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA70&dq=9/11&as_pt=MAGAZINES&cd=1#v=onepage&q=9%2F11&f=false

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/4199607

[.Markus]

One of the better articles in debunking 9/11 conspiracy's was done by Popular Mechanics. It debunks everything from the controlled detonations of WTC 7 to a cruise missiles hitting the Pentagon.

Here is a homework assignment for you two. Read the Popular Mechanics and try to debunk their debunks. I've posted the link to the article(s) to make it easier for you. Now...go forth and debunk! :woot:

http://books.google....=9%2F11&f=false

http://www.popularme...ry/news/4199607

Remember, S1k3st is not here to explain why he thinks it's all a government conspiracy. Just to nit pick over the exact meaning of the word 'Conspiracy theory'

[Jim K Global Moderator]

Remember, S1k3st is not here to explain why he thinks it's all a government conspiracy. Just to nit pick over the exact meaning of the word 'Conspiracy theory'

oh yea...sorry about that. I got stupid from reading his "official story in itself is a conspiracy theory". My bad. :( Guess he is dismissed from the homework assignment

Phenom II on the other hand.... :devil:

[s1k3sT]

I don't think you really are interested in what others have to say on the topic, s1k3sT, but okay, I'll chime in.

Yes, fanatics conspired to attack the US. They carried out the attack. The "official story" documents this conspiracy, the attack itself, and the aftermath. So?

You seem to just want tell other people that you don't think like the current definition of the term "conspiracy theory," and that you would like to instead redefine it to mean "scientific theory about a conspiracy." Fair enough, but it doesn't change the fact that this is not what the term means at present.

What is the point here? If you redefine "conspiracy theory" in the way I describe above, then the alternative explanations aren't theories at all. In fact, they aren't really even hypotheses. So what have you accomplished with this redefinition? Nothing that I can see. If you actually meant theory as in the normal everyday meaning of the word, then the "official story" is not a theory, because it is backed up by large amounts of evidence.

Really, what is it you're hoping to accomplish here? It seems like you're trying to make it sound like the "official story" is just unfounded speculation. Is that your goal? If so, you'd have to actually show how, something you've so far utterly failed in doing.

You seem to think I want to redefine the term conspiracy theory, I don't! I just want to point out that the meaning of the term is the exact opposite of the words that make it up. It is doublethink imho, that's all I wanted to point out in this topic!

Now, I do think the official conspiracy theory is bull**** and I would never deny that I feel this way, but I don't like to bring that into this topic because that's not what it's supposed to be about.

One of the better articles in debunking 9/11 conspiracy's was written by Popular Mechanics. It debunks everything from the controlled detonations of WTC 7 to a cruise missiles hitting the Pentagon.

Here is a homework assignment for you two. Read the Popular Mechanics and try to debunk their debunks. I've posted the link to the article(s) to make it easier for you. Now...go forth and debunk! :woot:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Vc8DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA70&dq=9/11&as_pt=MAGAZINES&cd=1#v=onepage&q=9%2F11&f=false

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/4199607

LOL, popular mechanics has been debunked so many times it's not even funny...

Maybe you are the one that needs to do some homework.

[Phenom II]

One of the better articles in debunking 9/11 conspiracy's was written by Popular Mechanics. It debunks everything from the controlled detonations of WTC 7 to a cruise missiles hitting the Pentagon.

Here is a homework assignment for you two. Read the Popular Mechanics and try to debunk their debunks. I've posted the link to the article(s) to make it easier for you. Now...go forth and debunk! :woot:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Vc8DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA70&dq=9/11&as_pt=MAGAZINES&cd=1#v=onepage&q=9%2F11&f=false

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/4199607

LMAO :laugh:

Debunking....

I just think its funny how everyone is saying "No way the US government could have pulled this off"

Yet 4 random blokes on a plane could !

[s1k3sT]

Remember, S1k3st is not here to explain why he thinks it's all a government conspiracy. Just to nit pick over the exact meaning of the word 'Conspiracy theory'

Nope, I'm not here to "nit pick" I'm here to point out two things. One, the official story is a conspiracy theory. Two, that the term conspiracy theory means the exact opposite than what the words that make it up mean. Are there any other phrases with an opposite meaning than the words that make them up? Not that I can think of, but then again if we have one doublethink term there is probably more.

[hdood]

You seem to think I want to redefine the term conspiracy theory, I don't!

But you do. You have to redefine it in order for your point to be valid.

I just want to point out that the meaning of the term is the exact opposite of the words that make it up.

Right, but it isn't. My Oxford dictionary has one of the definitions of theory as "an opinion or idea, not necessarily based on reasoning." That's different from the "official story," which is actually backed up by large amounts of evidence and is not just speculation or opinion. So what's the problem? I mean, no one has claimed that it means scientific theory in this context.

Even if you had been right, I still don't see what of value you have accomplished. It doesn't make the conspiracy theories any more valid. It would just be nitpicking on meaningless things because you don't have anything to say about the actual subject.

[s1k3sT]

But you do. You have to redefine it in order for your point to be valid.

Right, but it isn't. My Oxford dictionary has one of the definitions of theory as "an opinion or idea, not necessarily based on reasoning." That's different from the "official story," which is actually backed up by large amounts of evidence and is not just speculation or opinion. So what's the problem? I mean, no one has claimed that it means scientific theory in this context.

Even if you had been right, I still don't see what of value you have accomplished. It doesn't make the conspiracy theories any more valid. It would just be nitpicking on meaningless things because you don't have anything to say about the actual subject.

I never tried redefining anything, I'm just pointing out the redefinition that already took place.

The official story ISN'T backed by evidence, which is why all the believers make personal attacks or dismiss us as "truthers" instead of debate the facts.

Just because you choose to not see my point doesn't mean I lack one, you just can't understand it or choose not to understand it. You may have tipped back a little too much koolaid...

One more time:

The meanings of the term conspiracy theory is the exact opposite of the meaning of the words that make it up! If that isn't doublethink I don't know what is. No big deal though, right?

[PreKe]

But the eye witnesses say it sounded like firecrackers, bang bang bang bang bang bang - perfect example of how a controlled demolition explosion sounds

Really? What eye witnesses said that? Because the videos I've seen only have a couple of loud explosions (if that's what they were) some time apart, and that was it.

Why would the buildings collapse from the bottom, when the fire was at the top, and what are the chances of them collapsing perfectly down on themselves, that take demolition experts months of planning, not just blow the top off and hope for the best

Exactly, it takes not only months of planning, but they also have to poke holes all over the building and insert thousands (or in this case, tens of thousands) of explosives to demolish the building. That would mean that for many months ahead of 9/11, the buildings would not have been used at all because it would be impossible to poke holes everywhere and insert explosives with people working in the offices.

If they collapsed of their own free will, they would have weakened / failed on 1 side and fallen sideways

Buildings don't have free will. Geez.

[.Markus]

I never redefined anything, I'm just pointing out the redefinition that already took place.

The official story ISN'T backed by evidence, which is why all the believers would rather make personal attacks or dismiss us as "truthers" instead of debate the facts. Just because you choose to not see my point doesn't mean I lack one, you just can't understand it. You must have tipped back a little too much koolaid...

I'm sorry, but that's probably one of the most ignorant comments ever in this entire forum.

Are you trying to claim that there is no evidence that Al-Qaeda was behind this tragic event?

Seeing it from an objective point of view, would you not agree there is much more in favour for Al-Qaeda perpetrating these attacks than the US government?

Do bear in mind as well, Al-Qaeda have many times previously and after successfully launched attacks against western interests, such as

• '00 bombing of USS Destroyer Cole
• the three '98 US embassy bombings in Africa,
• the '96 failed assasination attempt at Clinton
• the '93 WTC bombing

[PreKe]

The official story ISN'T backed by evidence

What part of it?

I never made this thread to debate 9/11 theories, I made it to discuss the 1984 type meaning of the term conspiracy theory.

There's nothing "1984" about it. It's a specific term used for a specific thing. You need to stop trying to redefine terms that are already perfectly defined.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

LOL, popular mechanics has been debunked so many times it's not even funny...

Maybe you are the one that needs to do some homework.

Where...show me? I gave you the links to the Popular Mechanics article...why not give me something that directly debunks the article?

Furthermore, your nitpicking over the definition of "Conspiracy Theory" is laughable...albeit moronic.

LMAO :laugh:

Debunking....

I just think its funny how everyone is saying "No way the US government could have pulled this off"

Yet 4 random blokes on a plane could !

:blink: Just think you scored a big fat "F". Once again, you failed to bring anything up which directly counters the article(s). Saying "4 random blokes" couldn't hijack a plane doesn't cut it. Try again! :laugh:

See, this is why it is hard to argue with conspiracy theorist. You can get so emotionally invested in your own views that you start to lose interest in the facts (or choose to ignore).

[hdood]

The meanings of the term conspiracy theory is the exact opposite of the meaning of the words that make it up!

Incorrect. Please read the post you responded to. I gave you the dictionary definition of theory. It is not the opposite of the way it's used in "conspiracy theory."

[Phenom II]

Really? What eye witnesses said that? Because the videos I've seen only have a couple of loud explosions (if that's what they were) some time apart, and that was it.

Exactly, it takes not only months of planning, but they also have to poke holes all over the building and insert thousands (or in this case, tens of thousands) of explosives to demolish the building. That would mean that for many months ahead of 9/11, the buildings would not have been used at all because it would be impossible to poke holes everywhere and insert explosives with people working in the offices.

Buildings don't have free will. Geez.

Im sick of looking through the videos I have already posted, watch them, you will see the reports of people saying firecrackers, and bang bang bang bang like 4th of July etc

And what else do buildings have if not free will.... they not machines, they just go where ever their structure allows them

[iamawesomewicked]

To whomever said the building fell from the bottom... holy god damn hell... are you freaking serious? Go watch the video. There was not one instance that showed either of the WTC's collapsing from the bottom...

Im sick of looking through the videos I have already posted, watch them, you will see the reports of people saying firecrackers, and bang bang bang bang like 4th of July etc

And what else do buildings have if not free will.... they not machines, they just go where ever their structure allows them

No. They go where gravity pulls them.

[Phenom II]

Yea ok gravity, but their structure dictates which way gravity can pull them first

Anyway I keep trying to get out of this thread and get sucked back in :laugh: