It's not a conspiracy

[Joe User]

Okay... so you are trying to use disinfo and psyops to discredit the truth movement? Way to go...

No, the truther movement does a good enough job discrediting themselves. They don't need help from me. However, if they do want my help, I'm available.

Basically because I know the truth about the aliens, giant space lasers and the Yakuza and their link to 9/11, Katrina and Obama's birth certificate. Can't you see the truth?! How come the President hasn't personally denied this obvious conspiracy?

[Phenom II]

I figured he would try to claim I'm using Psychological warfare to discredit him. Thought this would be more appropriate :rofl:

But yes I am from Mars, don't believe the official stories about there being no life here. It's all a giant conspiracy planned so that in the future aliens will take over the planet and be reunited with their immortal God, George W. Bush.

:laugh: It wouldnt surprise me :laugh:

[Jim K Global Moderator]

I don't know the specific date. Here's what wikipedia has to say about the matter:

Conspiracy theory is a term that originally was a neutral descriptor for any claim of civil, criminal or political conspiracy. However, it has become largely pejorative and used almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning.

and what does wiki say about "Fringe Theory"...

We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study.[3] Examples include conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have little or no scientific support, esoteric claims about medicine, novel re-interpretations of history and so forth. Some of the theories addressed here may in a stricter sense be hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations.

based on both wiki articles...your think that "the official 9/11 story is a conspiracy" holds no value.

[s1k3sT]

http://www.newworldorderreport.com/News/tabid/266/ID/980/33-Conspiracy-Theories-That-Turned-Out-To-Be-True-What-Every-Person-Should-Know.aspx

There's no such thing as conspiracy theories, anyone that beleives in any conspiracy theories are mentally insane and should be shot on sight.

and what does wiki say about "Fringe Theory"...

based on both wiki articles...your think that "the official 9/11 story is a conspiracy" holds no value.

If you use the term after the redefinition (1984 style redefinition) then you are right. If you use the original definition however, then I am right. BTW that was my whole point with this topic, welcome to the discussion...

[Mr. Gibs]

http://www.newworldorderreport.com/News/tabid/266/ID/980/33-Conspiracy-Theories-That-Turned-Out-To-Be-True-What-Every-Person-Should-Know.aspx

There's no such thing as conspiracy theories, anyone that beleives in any conspiracy theories are mentally insane and should be shot on sight.

Nobody said you should be shot on site. But having 33 conspiracy theories proved right out of the millions that exist means very little. Not to mention neither of those were anywhere near as big as the 9/11 attacks and were a lot more believable / credible.

If you use the term after the redefinition (1984 style redefinition) that you are right. If you use the original definition however, then I am right. BTW that is the whole point of this topic, welcome to the discussion...

No you're still wrong because we live in 2010, not 1983. Things don't just change because you want them to.

[s1k3sT]

Nobody said you should be shot on site. But having 33 conspiracy theories proved right out of the millions that exist means very little. Not to mention neither of those were anywhere near as big as the 9/11 attacks and were a lot more believable / credible.

No you're still wrong because we live in 2010, not 1983. Things don't just change because you want them to.

Define "as big as 9/11". The gulf of tonkin is on that list, the event that caused the deaths of over 50,000 US lives! I know they weren't US lives (like it matters), but the Manhattan project was on that list also.

You are wrong, if it's been redefined to a doublethink meaning you are wrong for going along with it, and for ridiculing anyone that doesn't go along like you.

[Joe User]

http://www.newworldorderreport.com/News/tabid/266/ID/980/33-Conspiracy-Theories-That-Turned-Out-To-Be-True-What-Every-Person-Should-Know.aspx

There's no such thing as conspiracy theories, anyone that beleives in any conspiracy theories are mentally insane and should be shot on sight.

If you use the term after the redefinition (1984 style redefinition) then you are right. If you use the original definition however, then I am right. BTW that was my whole point with this topic, welcome to the discussion...

At least they're not physically insane, that would be tragic.

I'm not aware of any government dictate on how the term conspiracy theory must be defined (1984 style), could you point it out? Maybe a copy from the secret party archive.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

Nobody said you should be shot on site. But having 33 conspiracy theories proved right out of the millions that exist means very little. Not to mention neither of those were anywhere near as big as the 9/11 attacks and were a lot more believable / credible.

No you're still wrong because we live in 2010, not 1983.

yes...must we welcome s1k3sT to the present? How is that Commodore 64 working for you s1k3sT?

I do have a problem with the Manhattan Project being considered a "conspiracy" on that website. We were at war at the time and were secretly developing a weapon to end the war. Didn't realize we should reveal all secrets to the enemy. But whatever...didn't topic all together.

If you use the term after the redefinition (1984 style redefinition) then you are right. If you use the original definition however, then I am right. BTW that was my whole point with this topic, welcome to the discussion...

yea, the topic could have ended on page 1 if you were not so dang thickheaded. As Razorfold said...this is 2010 and not 1983 so you are still wrong.

[s1k3sT]

At least they're not physically insane, that would be tragic.

I'm not aware of any government dictate on how the term conspiracy theory must be defined (1984 style), could you point it out? Maybe a copy from the secret party archive.

Government dictate?! Where did that come from? I'm not saying it IS 1984, it's just similar. IMHO we live in a mixture of Brave New World and 1984, but we lean more towards Brave New World.

I do have a problem with the Manhattan Project being considered a "conspiracy" on that website. We were at war at the time and were secretly developing a weapon to end the war. Didn't realize we should reveal all secrets to the enemy. But whatever...didn't topic all together.

No one was saying anything was wrong with the Manhattan project being secret, it was just listed because it was a conspiracy theory until it was proven to be true.

[hdood]

I don't know the specific date. Here's what wikipedia has to say about the matter:

I get what you mean now. Your Wikipedia article says that "conspiracy theory" is being used as a negatively loaded term today. Fair enough, it is. Nothing wrong with that, language changes, that's perfectly normal. This kind of use predates 9/11 and then some.

Now, let's look at your alternative term made up of the individual words (conspiracy+theory as you called it). If I were to speculate about a bank robbery, then yes, that would be a conspiracy+theory. It would after all be defined by Oxford as "an opinion or idea about a conspiracy, not necessarily based on reasoning." Theory is in this context essentially synonymous with speculate.

A police investigation that uncovers and documents a conspiracy is however not merely a theory. The same goes for the official documentation of 9/11. It is not mere speculation. That is the difference between the "official story" and the conspiracy theories that you don't seem capable of grasping.

You are right that the way "conspiracy theory" is used today is designed to ridicule the alternative theories, but that still does not make the "official story" a conspiracy theory, nor does it make the alternative theories valid, so this whole discussion is a bit silly.

[s1k3sT]

yea, the topic could have ended on page 1 if you were not so dang thickheaded. As Razorfold said...this is 2010 and not 1983 so you are still wrong.

LOL, I will not follow along with a 1984 style redefinition of my language, you are the one in the wrong for going along with such a thing.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

Government dictate?! Where did that come from? I'm not saying it IS 1984, it's just similar. IMHO we live in a mixture of Brave New World and 1984, but we lean more towards Brave New World.

If you use the term after the redefinition (1984 style redefinition) then you are right. If you use the original definition however, then I am right.

ever get that sinking feeling? :rofl:

'cause you are sinking fast.

[Mr. Gibs]

Define "as big as 9/11". The gulf of tonkin is on that list, the event that caused the deaths of over 50,000 US lives!

Except it wasn't a conspiracy to kill tons of innocent people. America wanted to stop communism and as a result they did what they had to. They simply expected to completely steamroll the Vietcong, but that didn't happen. Hence it indirectly led to American lives been lost, and is completely different.

I know they weren't US lives (like it matters), but the Manhattan project was on that list also.

The Manhattan project was far from a conspiracy. You don't go about revealing to the world what new weapons you have in the middle of the war. It would completely defeat the purpose since the enemy now knows what you're going to use against them.

Not to mention, killing people in another country during war and killing your very own people on your very own soil are two completely different things.

You are wrong, if it's been redefined to a doublethink meaning you are wrong for going along with it, and for ridiculing anyone that doesn't go along like you.

Of course, all these Oxford professors and scholars of the English language are wrong too. Only you are right.

Maybe you should go create your own language since you know so much about them in general, and so little about the English language.

LOL, I will not follow along with a 1984 style redefinition of my language, you are the one in the wrong for going along with such a thing.

YOUR language? Excuse me but did you invent it? No. Are you responsible for keeping it current? No. Are you a world renowned scholar of the English language (or any language)? No. Do you own the rights to the English Language? No.

It's hardly your language. If you want to change the definition do it yourself, but stop being so ****ing arrogant and full of yourself that you expect us to follow you like you're some great expert.

All you are is a ****ing thickheaded idiot who cannot accept that he's wrong.

[s1k3sT]

I get what you mean now. Your Wikipedia article says that "conspiracy theory" is being used as a negatively loaded term today. Fair enough, it is. Nothing wrong with that, language changes, that's perfectly normal. This kind of use predates 9/11 and then some.

Now, let's look at your alternative term made up of the individual words (conspiracy+theory as you called it). If I were to speculate about a bank robbery, then yes, that would be a conspiracy+theory. It would after all be defined by Oxford as "an opinion or idea about a conspiracy, not necessarily based on reasoning." Theory is in this context essentially synonymous with speculate.

A police investigation that uncovers and documents a conspiracy is however not merely a theory. The same goes for the official documentation of 9/11. It is not mere speculation. That is the difference between the "official story" and the conspiracy theories that you don't seem capable of grasping.

You are right that the way "conspiracy theory" is used today is designed to ridicule the alternative theories, but that still does not make the "official story" a conspiracy theory, nor does it make the alternative theories valid, so this whole discussion is a bit silly.

I disagree, like I said I've been convicted of things I was innocent of so I'm not willing to let the police or judicial system have the "final say". Same goes for the official story of 9/11, I won't allow government funded agencies, of flat out biased ones, to tell me how things are without doing the research myself. I've done the research and I wish I could say I believe the official conspriacy theory, but I don't...

[Stetson]

Words and phrases change meaning, connotation, implication over time. That's just part of society and language.

The word "gay" has changed meaning drastically over just a few decades. Is the new definition an "1984 style definition"?

[brentaal]

I've done the research

Ah, the same kind of research you did for the Google conspiracy thread?

[Mr. Gibs]

I won't allow government funded agencies, of flat out biased ones, to tell me how things are without doing the research myself.

Purdue, EMRTC, National Geographic aren't government funded agencies. You're point is once again disproved.

I've done the research

Have you now? So you took samples from the WTC rubble (which you say was removed), you did calculations, you wrote computer simulations?

Wait a second, I believe you created and pointed out that this thread was about the meaning of the term "conspiracy theorist" so why are you still arguing about 9/11 huh?

[hdood]

I do have a problem with the Manhattan Project being considered a "conspiracy" on that website.

The Manhattan Project probably should not be considered a conspiracy, unless this is the 40s and you're on the other side. In that case you could say that the US was conspiring against you.

Anyway, the Manhattan Project is somewhat interesting in this context, because conspiracy theorists sometimes bring it up as evidence that the government can keep large operations secret. Of course the problem with that is that The Manhattan Project only had to be kept secret until the bombs fell. 9/11 on the other hand, apparently is supposed to be kept secret for all eternity. That's just not feasible.

[Joe User]

LOL, I will not follow along with a 1984 style redefinition of my language, you are the one in the wrong for going along with such a thing.

http://writinghood.com/style/grammar/eight-words-which-have-completely-changed-their-meaning-over-time/

A static language is a dead language.

[hdood]

I disagree, like I said I've been convicted of things I was innocent of so I'm not willing to let the police or judicial system have the "final say".

It wasn't really important to the point I was making about language. The point is that once something is actually documented and the facts are established, it's no long merely a theory.

Same goes for the official story of 9/11, I won't allow government funded agencies, of flat out biased ones, to tell me how things are without doing the research myself. I've done the research and I wish I could say I believe the official conspriacy theory, but I don't...

Based on earlier posts, it seems like you haven't really looked at any of the official documentation. You seem to instead be basing your opinion on what other people have told you it says. That's problematic. You'd be surprised at how many times I've seen conspiracy theories try to argue against points that the official documentation doesn't even make.

Anyway, in order to "make up your own mind," you actually do have to study the official documentation in-depth as well. You can't just look at information from the other side. That's not how you do research.

Also, a big problem is that there really is a limit to what research you can do yourself. At some point it requires in-depth knowledge about a subject, and it's simply not possible to have this for everything. Most people only have one specialty, and so often do have to accept the consensus of experts in other disciplines. If you look at the WTC reports, for instance, I can understand the bigger picture of what they say, but for many of the specifics I simply do not have knowledge and understanding that a structural or fire engineer might have. It's silly to think that you can know and understand everything.

Note that I said consensus, because it's true that you can't necessarily trust the (professional) opinion of an individual. You see this on the other side as well. Take that whatshername woman who has a doctorate in mechanical engineering (albeit dental.) That might cover certain aspects of 9/11, but she also believes that the WTC was "dustified" with space weapons, meaning it would probably make most sense to just ignore her. The same goes for everyone that goes against the vast majority.

[Nihilus]

Wow, this thread isn't dead yet?

I disagree, like I said I've been convicted of things I was innocent of so I'm not willing to let the police or judicial system have the "final say". Same goes for the official story of 9/11, I won't allow government funded agencies, of flat out biased ones, to tell me how things are without doing the research myself. I've done the research and I wish I could say I believe the official conspriacy theory, but I don't...

You do realize your research is biased too, right?

Even if you don't believe so, you must admit there is the possibility that you have been swept up in elaborate fantasy stories. Coming to believe in ever increasingly colluded plots; merely because the knowledge of them sets you apart from everyone else. Suddenly you know something they don't, you're special; and they're the blind sheep unwilling to grasp the harsh realities of the world.

What if you're just a bit paranoid and crazy? This is why we have the peer review process, so people like you can submit your hypotheses, they can be reviewed, and then rejected or published as is seen fit. The fact that NO ONE in academia anywhere in the entire world has distributed a single intellectually sound challenge to the official story does not bode well for your mental health.

[s1k3sT]

Wait a second, I believe you created and pointed out that this thread was about the meaning of the term "conspiracy theorist" so why are you still arguing about 9/11 huh?

Well, I've been getting all kinds of stupid replies about 9/11, if I ignore them I hounded to answer them if I answer them this **** happens.

Ah, the same kind of research you did for the Google conspiracy thread?

LOL, what you talkin bout?

http://writinghood.com/style/grammar/eight-words-which-have-completely-changed-their-meaning-over-time/

A static language is a dead language.

I realize languages can evolve and I'm not against that at all. I have a problem with it becoming the exact opposite of what it originally meant. It meant something that described almost the whole population, now it describes almost none of the population. That is what I have a problem with, and why I started this topic.

It wasn't really important to the point I was making about language. The point is that once something is actually documented and the facts are established, it's no long merely a theory.

That's the thing about conspiracies, unless you have a recording of the conspiring taking place you are always going to be theorizing.

The fact that NO ONE in academia anywhere in the entire world has distributed a single intellectually sound challenge to the official story

In your opinion maybe.

[brentaal]

I have a problem with it becoming the exact opposite of what it originally meant.

Then you've picked the wrong section and the wrong forum to debate an entirely linguistic matter. Go to WordReference if you want to discuss that, but I warn you, you'll get laughed at.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

I realize languages can evolve and I'm not against that at all. I have a problem with it becoming the exact opposite of what it originally meant. It meant something that described almost the whole population, now it describes almost none of the population. That is what I have a problem with, and why I started this topic.

guess you are not charged with the evolution of the language?

[hdood]

That's the thing about conspiracies, unless you have a recording of the conspiring taking place you are always going to be theorizing.

No, we have solid evidence that four planes were in fact hijacked (by Muslim fanatics), and that they were then flown into various targets, causing various documented damage. Your alternative theory says that this isn't true "because." The two are in no way equal, so stop trying to make it sound like they are.

In your opinion maybe.

Well, can you blame him? I mean, you earlier did argue that if we just ignored gravity, down would no longer be the path of least resistance and the top of the building should have fallen sideways. You then proceeded to call us pedants for pointing out that gravity actually does exist.

Apparently that constituted your "debunking" of the official story. Well, that and claiming that random people were related and that this apparently means something deep and profound.