South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

October 23, 2018, 19:47:35 PM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Please read the forum rules before posting.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

Why do people believe 911 was a conspiracy?

 (Read 28975 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
kennyg
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 25


« Reply #15 on: February 09, 2007, 17:21:16 PM »

Especially when there's a confluence of evidentiary lines.

It is incumbent upon those who make the first claim to prove their claim, not upon others to disprove it.

You're dodging the bullet here.  Please provide proof that it was Al Queda and Osama bin Laden who demolished the WTC and part of the Pentagon on 9/11.  The FBI, the White House and the State Department have failed to provide any substantial proof of their allegations even after 5 years have passed.  Why should anyone believe them?
Logged
bluegray
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +9/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 1107



saskeptics
WWW
« Reply #16 on: February 09, 2007, 17:28:14 PM »

Why do you believe that the WTC was demolished by terrorists?  Because you saw it on TV?  Because George W. Bush said so?
No, and I never actually said I believe that. Although most indications point in that direction.
What proof have you seen that it was a group of Al Queda terrorists sent by Osama bin Laden that hijacked aircraft and flew them into the twin towers?
I never said I had any. But still it's a likely explanation.
Either way, it was a conspiracy.  People think that it's smart to label ideas that originate outside of the mainstream media "Conspiracy Theories", pronounced with a sneer.
We've been through this in the other thread haven't we? Please stay on topic. What do you get out of believing it was the US Government and not Al Queda terrorists?
It isn't smart at all to be closed minded and believe only what you see on TV or read in YOU magazine.  Or Popular Mechanics, for that matter.
If they publish good evidence in YOU magazine, I'll believe it. Same goes for Popular Mechanics.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3734


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #17 on: February 09, 2007, 18:17:18 PM »

It is incumbent upon those who make the first claim to prove their claim, not upon others to disprove it.
Which is what they have done to the satisfaction of many experts from a diversity of disciplines.  But not, apparently, sufficient to your exacting standards.


You're dodging the bullet here.
No, I'm afraid you are.  You contest the official version of events with nothing so far but loose conjecture, a suitably affected mien of righteousness and lots of hot air.  It is, as you say, "incumbent" on you to provide evidence that the current account is wrong.  In this regard, it works the same way science does: a new theory must be thoroughly convincing before the old one is abandoned.


Please provide proof that it was Al Queda and Osama bin Laden who demolished the WTC and part of the Pentagon on 9/11.
I'm not an investigator, and so no doubt will fail to provide you with evidence you consider compelling ("proof" is the domain of mathematicians, logicians and philosophers).  Nevertheless, there's much been written on the Internet about the subject that a sincere search will reveal.  Google exists for this purpose.


The FBI, the White House and the State Department have failed to provide any substantial proof of their allegations even after 5 years have passed.
And doubtless they have good strategic reasons for withholding certain items of evidence.


Why should anyone believe them?
You may wish to direct that question at yourself.

'Luthon64
Logged
kennyg
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 25


« Reply #18 on: February 09, 2007, 23:29:36 PM »


The FBI, the White House and the State Department have failed to provide any substantial proof of their allegations even after 5 years have passed.
And doubtless they have good strategic reasons for withholding certain items of evidence.

So we're back at "Trust us.  We're experts".

These are the same people who told the world that Saddam Hussein had WMD. 
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3734


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #19 on: February 12, 2007, 07:09:05 AM »

So we're back at "Trust us.  We're experts".
Not quite.  What you conveniently disregard, as pointed out to you before before, is the multitude of independent experts' assessments.  I'll grant you that any one of them may be mistaken, but all of them together and in the same way?  Or, worse yet, they're colluding to deceive the world?  I think not.  The other thing you seem to forget is that history has shown that it takes only a single whistleblower to expose a huge cover-up like the one you're suggesting.  Where is he or she?

And, more importantly, you keep shying away from presenting a credible alternative.  You expect that you will be taken seriously when all you can do is keep shouting, "Liars!" without offering any evidence that your accusation is in fact sustainable.

You're starting to sound like a stuck record.

'Luthon64
Logged
kennyg
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 25


« Reply #20 on: February 14, 2007, 15:48:56 PM »

The other thing you seem to forget is that history has shown that it takes only a single whistleblower to expose a huge cover-up like the one you're suggesting.  Where is he or she?

There are a number of mechanisms that operate when it comes to decision making in a group.  One of them is that when a dominant leader states an opinion, the majority of the rest of the group tend to agree with that opinion.  Once George W. made the pronouncement, "Osama did it" and the news media, notably CNN and Fox News ran that hundreds of times, it was hard for anyone to offer a contrary opinion.  Also, at a time when saying anything that could be construed as "Anti-America" was roundly condemned and your job could be on the line for it, those who dissented with the "official version" of events mostly chose to keep silent.

You appear to be pushing the straw man argument hard.  It really does not matter how the twin towers and building 7 were demolished.  What really matters is why.

Although in late 2001 and for two to three years after that, the majority of Americans were convinced that 9/11 was an act of terrorism, recent polls have found that a majority of Americans now think that their own government had a hand in the events of 9/11.  Why would that be the case?  Well, since then, the evidence that Bush and Blair flat out lied about Suddam Hussein having WMD and Iraq being involved in 9/11 has become overwhelming.  Not only did they lie about it, but they colluded to manufacture evidence to persuade their respective countries' elected representatives (Congress and Senate in the US, House of Commons in the UK) to vote in favour of attacking Iraq.

Now the majority of Americans have made the connection, and concluded that if Bush could lie about Iraq having WMD and supporting Al Queda, then he probably lied about Osama bin Laden and Al Queda and 9/11 too.

Under these conditions, the White House and the State Department have still not produced solid evidence that 9/11 was an act of terrorism, even though their jobs are now on the line because of that and the lies propogaged about Iraq.


Logged
kennyg
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 25


« Reply #21 on: February 14, 2007, 15:49:41 PM »

The method of propaganda being employed here is called the "Big Lie".  The following quote is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie

---

Hitler wrote in his 1925 autobiography Mein Kampf (James Murphy translation, page 134):

All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes. ...

---

Just for the record, I agree with the opinion of many analysts that there is no threat of global terrorism.  The "War on Terrorism" is a hoax.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3734


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #22 on: February 15, 2007, 10:33:33 AM »

My turn to be the stuck record, okay?

And, more importantly, you keep shying away from presenting a credible alternative.  You expect that you will be taken seriously when all you can do is keep shouting, "Liars!" without offering any evidence that your accusation is in fact sustainable.

All you've provided thus far is further accusation, backed, at best, with flimsy circumstantial speculation that is indistinguishable from a rant.

On the one hand, you credit "them" with the wilyness to construct this "Big Lie" of yours (without telling us the "Big Truth"), on the other "they" are too stupid to heed the lesson of Watergate.

Now, which is it?

'Luthon64
« Last Edit: February 15, 2007, 10:35:27 AM by Anacoluthon64 » Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3734


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #23 on: March 19, 2007, 10:59:15 AM »

One wonders what inventive spin the CTists will put on this:
Quote
The 31 plots that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said he helped organise, according to a defence department transcript of a statement he made during a hearing at Guantanamo Bay prison:

<...snip...>


  • The September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States.

<...snip...>

Could it be a forced confession, obtained under torture or duress?  Is Khalid a hypnotised or brainwashed patsy, perhaps?  Maybe it's all staged to "bring about closure," and Khalid will quietly disappear into a life of luxury, courtesy of assorted US government agencies, after a suitable show has been put on.  Or is it merely an old-fashioned double-cross the US is pulling on one of its own in pursuit of "plausible deniability" now that tempers are flaring?

The mind reels with possibilities.

It would be asking way too much that the 911 CT lobby consider Khalid's statement at face value: as the admission of a pathological terrorist with much deranged hate for the world in his heart, and murderous bouts of carefully composed rage its only vent.

But that possibility's just too simple.

'Luthon64
Logged
Logic_Bomb
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #24 on: January 28, 2008, 19:28:51 PM »

The evidence that 9/11 was an engineered event by western intelligence agencies and the global elite is overwhelming. If you want to be enlightened, visit www.rense.com and prepared to be blown away!
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3734


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #25 on: January 29, 2008, 10:39:35 AM »

Interesting, then, that Jeff Rense is so often described as a loon, whose stock-in-trade, like a fringe low-circulation newsletter, is racism and hate speech.  Oh, but I forget: it's all part of a big conspiracy to discredit Rense and to manipulate the population-at-large, keeping them dumb.

ETA: What evidence would you consider sufficient to convince you that the official version of the events of 911 is accurate?

'Luthon64
« Last Edit: January 29, 2008, 10:50:50 AM by Anacoluthon64 » Logged
Logic_Bomb
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #26 on: January 30, 2008, 13:20:47 PM »

Oh well if it's on Wikipedia it must be true then? LOL. Copernicus was a loon too! And a silly little nerd called Bill Gates for believing that normal citizens would use computers. Shall I continue? Please don't knock it until you've tried it.
Logged
bluegray
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +9/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 1107



saskeptics
WWW
« Reply #27 on: January 30, 2008, 13:39:11 PM »

Oh well if it's on rense.com it must be true then? LOL.
As your name suggests, your logic has bombed with this one. By your logic, someone must be right if their views are rejected? People like Rense are not taken seriously because they have no evidence for what they are arguing. Besides, it's been tried, knocked, and sensible people have moved on.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3734


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #28 on: January 30, 2008, 14:02:10 PM »

Oh well if it's on Wikipedia it must be true then? LOL.
The truth isn’t guaranteed, of course, but the nature of Wikipedia makes it a credible resource.  You must have missed the prolific list of contributors to the article, and you’re also entitled to correct any factual errors it contains.  Please go ahead and do so.

Copernicus was a loon too! And a silly little nerd called Bill Gates for believing that normal citizens would use computers. Shall I continue?
Please do!  Copernicus had lots of solid evidence to back up his claims.  Bill Gates had the acute foresight to bet on the right horse.  Jeff Rense, on the other hand, has neither good evidence nor good horse sense, despite your earlier averment re “overwhelming evidence”.  Were it so overwhelming, you can be sure that a major US newspaper or two, if not one of several independent investigative bodies, would have picked up on it.

Please don't knock it until you've tried it.
Oh, I have tried the "troofers" but I found their ill-conceived rants, badly constructed argumentation, poor grasp of scientific principles, manufactured coincidences and energetic finger pointing quite unconvincing, not to mention morally repugnant.  They rely on emotive humbug to evince an emotional response, not a rational one.  We all like a good scapegoat for our own bad fortunes; why not make one up with blacker-than-black morals?

So my question still stands:  What evidence would you consider sufficient to convince you that the official version of the events of 911 is accurate?

And, what bluegray V said. Smiley

'Luthon64
Logged
Logic_Bomb
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #29 on: January 31, 2008, 12:38:51 PM »

Look I'm not going to be drawn into a senseless battle of wits here. If you want to believe the mainstream media (all owned by the global elite) then that is your choice. If you want to knock rense.com without delving into the NUMEROUS reports with FACTS on 9/11 etc., then you can also try www.infowars.com. I was not promoting Jeff Rense as an individual, there are hundreds of contributors with unquestionable credentials that submit articles to his site. And if you really want to honestly seek the truth behind the global conspiracy, google for and download a document called "World's last chance", detailing the rise of the Illuminati and global elite since its' official inception on 1 July 1776 by Adam Weishaupt. If you can't find it on the net, let me know and I will email the doc to you.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.9 seconds with 23 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page September 10, 2017, 18:36:16 PM
Privacy Policy