9/11 Illuminatist: Inside job by America ? Not necessarily. Done by Osama Bin-Laden? Doubtful. Terrorists? Yes. But who are the "terrorists"? Illuminatist: Here is some evidence that we were LIED to about the official "explanation of the "9/11"incident . Testimony from various experts in demolitions etc. (and common sense) indicate the "official" investigation, was botched, either due to negligence and/or was a direct cover-up of the facts, of what ACTUALLY took place. Beware! The video is 2 hrs in length, but worth the watch, except to the most die-hard denialist. (Edited by Illuminatist)  LiptonCambell: First off, if you go to "share" on the youtube page, and post that link here, the video will be embedded. Secondly, that video is utter bs. Illuminatist: Yes, it makes sense to anyone with a fully functioning brain, actually. (Hint: your emote) Illuminatist: @ Lipton: I guess my point about "Denialists", will have to suffice, then, since you cannot/willnot back up your blind accusation.  LiptonCambell: Blind Accusation? What happened on 9/11 is common knowledge- the causes have been recorded and seen from multiple different angles, as the world watched in horror as two planes brought down the WTC buildings. Stepping back and saying "that couldn't happen" to me has the same tone as the kind of people who look at the moon landing, and say that "it couldn't happen" Illuminatist: Yes, you heard me: Blind accusation. #1: You still have not backed up your claim (except with your opinion), and "common" I will give you, "knowledge" ? nope. Unless you count being deceived, "knowledge". Causes recorded? Where? Unless you mean the video. Planes brought down the buildings? Not likely, as the video plainly shows. Not to mention, "building 7". Not one plane hit that building, yet you seem to think otherwise. Evidence for the "plane" hitting the pentagon, I could bring up; there is none. The "official report" of the "investigation" was proven beyond doubt, to be a lie. Did I leave anything out? Oh. I did. "The 'causes' that were recorded" were the ones in the video. The ones about the buildings being DEMOLISHED. As in "A controlled demolition". Not caused by a plane/planes. As far as your "the moon landing" comment, YOU are saying the EVIDENCE in the video, that it was a demolition job, CAN'T/DIDN'T HAPPEN. Sounds like denial, hmmm. You were "hoist with your own petard", methinks. (Edited by Illuminatist) LiptonCambell: >>>#1: You still have not backed up your claim (except with your opinion) So offering a link supporting my stance is backing up my claim? "Critics of these conspiracy theories say they are a form of conspiracism common throughout history after a traumatic event in which conspiracy theories emerge as a mythic form of explanation.[265] A related criticism addresses the form of research on which the theories are based. Thomas W. Eagar, an engineering professor at MIT, suggested they "use the 'reverse scientific method'. They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion." Eagar's criticisms also exemplify a common stance that the theories are best ignored. "I've told people that if the argument gets too mainstream, I'll engage in the debate." According to him, this happened when Steve Jones, a physics professor at Brigham Young University, took up the issue.[266] Michael Shermer, writing in Scientific American, said: "The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking. All the evidence for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy. Such notions are easily refuted by noting that scientific theories are not built on single facts alone but on a convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry."[267] Scientific American,[267] Popular Mechanics,[268] and The Skeptic's Dictionary[269] have published articles that rebut various 9/11 conspiracy theories. Popular Mechanics has published a book entitled Debunking 9/11 Myths that expands upon the research first presented in the article.[270] In the foreword for the book Senator John McCain wrote that blaming the U.S. government for the events "mars the memories of all those lost on that day" and "exploits the public's anger and sadness. It shakes Americans' faith in their government at a time when that faith is already near an all-time low. It trafficks in ugly, unfounded accusations of extraordinary evil against fellow Americans."[271] Der Spiegel dismissed 9/11 conspiracy theories as a "panoply of the absurd", stating "as diverse as these theories and their adherents may be, they share a basic thought pattern: great tragedies must have great reasons."[272] Journalist Matt Taibbi, in his book The Great Derangement, discusses 9/11 conspiracy theories as symptomatic of what he calls the "derangement" of American society; a disconnection from reality due to widespread "disgust with our political system".[198] Drawing a parallel with the Charismatic movement, he argues that both "chose to battle bugbears that were completely idiotic, fanciful, and imaginary," instead of taking control of their own lives.[198] While critical, Taibbi explains that 9/11 conspiracy theories are different from "Clinton-era black-helicopter paranoia", and constitute more than "a small, scattered group of nutcases [...] they really were, just as they claim to be, almost everyone you meet."[198] Historian Kenneth J. Dillon argues that 9/11 conspiracy theories represent an overly easy target for skeptics and that their criticisms obfuscate the underlying issue of what actually happened if there was not a conspiracy. He suggests that the answer is criminal negligence on the part of the president and vice president, who were repeatedly warned, followed by a cover-up conspiracy after 9/11.[273][undue weight? – discuss] This was expanded upon by columnist Matt Mankelow writing for the online edition of the British Socialist Worker. He concludes that 9/11 truthers while "desperately trying to legitimately question a version of events" end up playing into the hands of the neoconservatives they are trying to take down by creating a diversion. Mankelow noted that this has irritated many people who are politically left wing.[274] David Aaronovitch, a columnist for The Times, in his book entitled Voodoo Histories: The Role of the Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History that was published in May 2009, claimed that the theories strain credulity.[76] Aaronovitch also charged that 9/11 conspiracy theorists have exaggerated the expertise of those supporting their theories, and noted that 9/11 conspiracy theorists including David Ray Griffin cross cite each other.[275] Harvard Law professor Cass Sunstein co-authored a 2009 paper which used members of the 9/11 Truth movement and others as an examples of people who suffer from “crippled epistemologies,” to public trust and the political system. He wrote that "They do not merely undermine democratic debate...In extreme cases, they create or fuel violence. If government can dispel such theories, it should do so.”[41] In June 2011 the Royal Institute of British Architects was criticized for hosting a lecture by Richard Gage, president of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Rick Bell, the director of the American Institute of Architects New York chapter, who was a witness to the 9/11 attacks, said that “no amount of money” would persuade him to allow the group to talk at his headquarters and stated that Gage lacks credibility among the professional community. Eugine Kohn, former spokesperson for the American Institute of Architects, said Gage's theories were "ridiculous", "There were no explosives planted”, and “The buildings were definitely brought down by the planes". The decision to host the event was also criticized by the former president of the Royal Institute of British Architects and the founding president of the American Institute of Architects United Kingdom chapter. Gage has been warned by the AIA against giving a false impression that he has a relationship with them. A July article in the organizations magazine criticized Gage for continuing to intimate that he has an association with them and claimed there were no architects at an Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth screening held in an American Institute of Architects boardroom [276] The Royal Institute of British Architects released a statement saying the perception that the group endorses events held in its buildings is "regrettable", and said they would review policy on "private hire" of its buildings.[277] Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan offer scathing criticism of many of the above theories in The Eleventh Day, their 2011 investigation of the attacks.[278] U.S. representative Peter T. King, chairmen of the House Homeland Security Committee, said 9/11 conspiracy theorists "trivialize" the "most tragic event to affect the United States" and that "People making these claims are disgraceful, and they should be ashamed of themselves".[279] According to a 2011 analysis in a Skeptical Inquirer's article people involved in this movement, which seemingly is a disparate group with very diversified backgrounds, could be classified into three groups. They join the movement for different reasons, loosely self-assemble to fill different roles and are united by their shared mistrust in experts and the establishment (government and reputable sources of knowledge), and conspiratorial stance. Through their engagement, they each find their own fulfillment and satisfaction. Together, they contribute to the persistence, resilience and exaggerated claims of acceptance (in general public) of the movement. These three groups are:[280] Hard Core: The organizers and active members of the various 9/11 Truth Movement organizations. They produce the information, spot the anomalies and technical inconsistencies, provide the technical base and form the theories. While they claim to be only interested in facts and to use scientific method, they commit the logical fallacy of ‘confirmation bias’ by pre-determining the outcome, then searching for corroborating evidence while ignoring the vast body of peer-reviewed, independent, consensual research which contradict their theories. They supply the physical structure of the movement by organizing events, seminars, discussions, marches and distributing flyers and pamphlets. Their numbers are relatively small but they are tight-knit and highly connected. Their worldview favors ‘super-conspiracy’, a master plan that is behind conspiracies which they believe they are uncovering.[280] Critically turned: They are the young students and political activists whose affiliation with the 9/11 Truth Movement often is rooted from their dissatisfaction and anger at the established political and social order. Their sense of justice and idealism propels them to activism against perceived oppression and social injustice. Their penchant to use Internet, especially social media and tech savvy make them the propaganda machine for the movement. They produce YouTube video and films with cool, countercultural content, make good use of pop culture parody and eye-catching graphics. The countercultural street cred of their productions buy them broad appeal and exposure to millions of people.[280] Illiterati: They are the movement’s mass membership backbone, a large, diffuse group which give the movement exaggerated claims of popularity and influence. Participation in the 9/11 Truth Movement, to this group of people, is as much a social and recreational pursuit as the quest for truth. Their partaking is mostly through web 2.0 social networking and hits on the YouTube video. Their commentaries often are emotional and they make no pretense to be accurate, balanced or to show genuine intent to find truth. Involvement with the movement that fit their worldview gives them a sense of identity and belonging, which they find more appealing than the facts and evidences of the 9/11 terrorist attack itself.[280]" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories#Criticism http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fahrenheit-2777 http://skepdic.com/911conspiracy.html http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/3491861?page=4 Illuminatist: Tried the links you managed to finally provide........ All they really say is nothing........ Except that "the conspiracy theorists" (The ones that have EVIDENCE, and can critically think for themselves; and do not deny the evidence), are anyone who disagrees with the "official" "investigation", that, as I pointed out earlier, is a FRAUD. If you bothered to watch the video, you would not only see (without denying) the evidence/testimonies/common-sense (or "un-common sense) of the people who brought the facts of the matter to light, but also where these said people, caught "the official investigators" (the U.S. government) in an outright lie; also, the "evidence" that was planted (apparently), at the scene: A passport that a "terrorist" left behind (Apparently flew out the window of the W.T.C. in "mint condition"; can you say "Should have been burned in the fire, or at least partially"?) Hmmm.So, as it stands, you have STILL SAID NOTHING except your OPINION on the matter; or maybe as you put it: " So offering a link supporting my stance is backing up my claim?" Conclusion: Either Lipton is in absolute denial of the facts, or he is a hypocrite for ragging on me about what "supports a claim". AND in denial about the facts.  Illuminatist: Addendum: Wow it sure took Ocd_Ocd a long time to come up with THAT ..........Almost as much time as it took Lipton to come up with his extended rant with nothing to say..... But he helped prove MY point..... I guess that's something.........  Illuminatist: A nice lonnnnnng thesis on "explaining" what a "conspiracy theorist" is....... O.K. ........ | Politics Chat Room 23 People Chatting Similar Conversations |
Lipton 