A Great Argument Against the Conspiracy
Regnad Kcin (try it backwards) at the JREF Forums:
Considering what alternative-9/11-conspiracy theorists propose would be one of the most complex undertakings of its kind -- not only to plan, but to implement, and continue to cover-up -- evidence and proof should be dropping from the trees like over-ripe apples. That it isn't might tell you something.
Yep. This is why they are reduced to lying about the cellphones/Airfones, about Wally Miller, about Marvin Bush, about how the towers looked like controlled demolition.
posted by Pat @ 9:39 AM
11 comments
11 Comments:
This is routine. Pat and I signed on to their forum, and commented on a thread about this blog. We were banned the next day.
I'm back on, James, but I was talking back and forth with Dylan, so I think the mods were afraid to kick me off. Your suspension is probably over too. Homer, I went over there but they've locked that particular topic. It does note that you've been "suspended".
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Considering what alternative-9/11-conspiracy theorists propose would be one of the most complex undertakings of its kind -- not only to plan, but to implement, and continue to cover-up -- evidence and proof should be dropping from the trees like over-ripe apples. That it isn't might tell you something.
Only in the world of the "skeptic" official BS believers is it possible for "19" hijackers to do this deed and then not possible for a small and well organized crime group within the government to do the same. Like I've been saying before, blind patriotism, lack of sophistication or simply stupidity prevents these people from seeing just beyond the lies.
Only in the world of the "skeptic" official BS believers is it possible for "19" hijackers to do this deed and then not possible for a small and well organized crime group within the government to do the same.
Nobody says it would be impossible for them to do it, keeping their connection to it quiet afterwards is another matter indeed.
Nesnyc;
The problem with your argument, is that what each group is alleged to have done are completely different.
To believe the terrorists did it, is to believe that 19 Al-Qaeda trained terrorists, moved to the USA, learned how to fly, then hijacked 4 planes and flew them into targets.
To believe the govt et al did it, is to believe that the govt brought down 4 jets full of people, then put drone aircraft back int he air, then secretly killed all the people or moved them into a massive witness protection plan somewhere. menawhile, the drone jets are then via a delayed remote control system, are flown into WTC 1, and WTC2 both of which have been previously loaded with explosives, well in advance, in particular, well loaded in the just the floors picked to be struck. ANother dron eplaen is flown out over shanksville and dumped for no reason, wilst a cruise missile is then blasted into the pentagon. ALl of this done by a handful, with no whistleblowers...
See, looking at it, it is much easier to believe the first scenario, and Occam's razor would say so..
It would seem to me, the easiest thing to do, would be to just simply plant the explosives in the basement, and then the Petagon, then just blow them up, within 15 minutes of each other. Govt could blame it on terrorists, and we would all have been just as mad, and supported the war just as much, and it would have been alot simpler for the govt dont ya think...
Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. Look at "Bigfoot" -- no evidence exists that Bigfoot is real, but that is not proof that Bigfoot does not exist.
Likewise, a lack of evidence pointing to govt complicity in 9/11 does not prove such complicity does not exist.
However, it comes down to the burden of proof, and in a classic reversal, the CTers attempt to shift this burden backward onto the mainstream. The burden is on them to produce evidence that supports their claims, but instead they demand evidence that disproves them. It's fairly trivial to produce this evidence, as the same evidence that allows the mainstream view of the 9/11 to persist as such is often the antidote to 9/11 denial claims.
Unfortunately for rational thinkers, the CTers take a page or several from the Evolution Denial movement and just pretend this evidence doesn't exist, no matter how many times you present it.
How many times have I seen the "small isolated WTC7 fires" claim thrown around with absolutely no reversal?
Oh, but they play a fair game over at the LC forums. They make a good show of being open-minded and allowing one CTer to debunk another -- but it's as if they consciously or unconsiously lob slow pitches straight across the plate for one another, as in this fictional exchange:
[Truther 1] I hear aliens did 9/11!
[Truther 2] No, friend, no evidence of aliens existing is to be found.
[Truther 1] Ah, thanks for setting me straight, brother. At least we agree there were no planes.
[Truther 2] You're right. No evidence exists supporting aircraft, either.
[Truther 1] God damn we're open minded.
[Truther 2] Hold on, gotta ban a skeptic.
Yes; science -- both in and out of the lab -- is based on the idea of provisional acceptance being granted to the most widely supported hypotheses, which become theories. In absense of counter-evidence, such provisional acceptance approaches -- but never reaches -- "truth".
The treatment of the "official story" or the "conspiracy theories" as dogma paints those on either side of the debate with an unscientific brush.
It's unfortunate that those exhorting us to "keep an open mind" rarely have one of their own.
nesNYC wrote: "Only in the world of the 'skeptic' official BS believers is it possible for '19' hijackers to do this deed and then not possible for a small and well organized crime group within the government to do the same."
The obvious problem with this idea is this:
According to the official account, the "Conspiracy of 19 Hijackers" let's call it, began at some finite time in the past and ended on 9/11.
According to conspiracy theorists, the "Conspiracy of Government" also began at some finite time in the past. This is where things get crazy, though. Hiding the plans isn't the hard part. Hiding the calculated execution of those plans once they're carried out is. On 9/11, according to conspiracy theorists, the government's conspiracy *truly* began. Now they would be burdened with the highly implausible task of keeping their involvement secret for an *indefinite* amount of time.
The 19 hijackers only had to keep their *plans* secret until the act was carried out. After that, it didn't matter who knew.
http://www.mlgpro.com/forum/showthread.php?t=83713
A thread of mine on the MLG forums (an unlikely place for a forum on thought-provoking discussion, but hey). Probably not as long as the JREF forum one, but argues well against the conspiracy, I think.
One of these weekends, I need to read through and log the counterpoints of the JREF forum post against CTers.
Keep up the good work, guys!
Post a Comment
<< Home