What is wrong with being a Conspiracy Theorist?

No, they're theorists. This whole thing is an exercise in colloquialism.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You should have followed the link at bottom of the article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html

From the link:

I'm sure you'll retort with some nonsense about them being pressured to cover up their story, or some such BS, because that's easier for you to believe than the possibility that they made a mistake. Because not only are the news media co-conspirators, they're absolutely perfect.

Not in the way you mean it, no. As was said before, a "conspiracy theory" is a colloquial term describing a loony theory based on nothing but paranoia and misinformation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agree on this being an exercise in colloquialism in reference to the expression "conspiracy theorists". And maybe they should still be called theorists because they hold their hypothesis to be true even if the general public does not. But it seems the meaning of the word theory can be confusing. But this could easily be heading again into a tangent that is not productive to the OP.Which is why I followed up with:

If Jan Ardena would like to take the discussion in this direction I will be glad to do so. Otherwise I think I have said all I can say about "What is wrong with being a conspiracy theorist?" Anything else would be repetitive and annoying.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

They should be called "conspiracy theorists" because that's what they've always been called and it works. Psi is simply trying to confuse the matter, but the literal meaning of "conspiracy" and "theory" are irrelevant. It's like saying "football" is a misnomer for the NFL because in most instances kicking the ball is illegal. Doesn't matter. When you say "football" in the US--which is pretty much the only place the game is played--everyone knows what you mean. Same goes for conspiracy theorists. It doesn't matter that "theory" in a literal sense doesn't fit what they do.

 

So are you saying the Official Story is a Conspiracy Theory or not for the purposes of this thread?

psik

 

For the purpose of this thread and in consideration of how the term is accepted and most commonly used the official story is not a Conspiracy theory. Balerion makes a very good point in post number 44. With:

(bold mine) I did not bold the accusation of psi trying to confuse the matter because I think I am the one that inadvertently confused it. Perhaps gave a platform unintentionally. I tend to over think things sometimes. For that I apologize.

 

It says:

That's great. Not raising an issue means not explaining anything.

That is why all Conspiracy Theories are CRAP. They deal with human behavior and what people want to believe. That is not what physics is about. The Laws of Physics cannot give a damn about anybody or what anybody wants. So conspiracy theorists are dummies no matter what conspiracy they believe in. Deal with real science.

But after ten years this has become a huge psychological and cultural issue. As a physics problem it should have been resolved in six months. You can't design a skyscraper over 250 meters tall without figuring out how to distribute the steel and concrete down the building. But when does Richard Gage ever talk about that?

psik

 

Read it in context, psi:

It's saying that three government bodies (the FBI, the Commission on Terrorist Attacks, and the Senate Joint Inquiry) all investigated the events and none ever found a reason to doubt the identity of the hijackers.

You and a bunch of know-nothing loons are having problems with the physics. No one credible has any problem with it. Setting aside your misunderstandings either of physics or of the tower's construction (you've demonstrated a severe misunderstanding of both in the 9/11 thread) have you not asked yourself why you're on the side of the loonies? Seriously, your grasp of physics is whacked, but your grasp of logic seems to be even worse. Just stop for a second and think about which side of this debate you're on, and if that's really where you think you should be. The only people who agree with you on this are the same people you talk about above.

 

Psik, if you want to debate the validity of a particular conspiracy theory, I am sure there is already a thread devoted to it or you can create one. Try not to make a thread about conspiracy theory in general to be about YOUR particular passion.

Balerion took the high road early and apologized for his part in the tangent, the thread went back to being productive but at this point you are goading Balerion to engage again in the debate of your theory. I know this is not my thread and I am not a mod, but I am asking as a fellow member, one who has no knowledge of your particular theory and no opinion on it whatsoever, to please allow the thread to stay on topic. I would love to see other people join in and give their perspectives on the question in the OP. They will not join in if all they see is a flame war between you and Balerion.

Balerion, please don't give in to the goading.

 

I answered the point of your thread.

There is nothing further to say since you have DEFINED the Official Story as not being a Conspiracy Theory.

psik

 

I added the color

Can you please clarify who the quote in blue is attributed to, because I did not say that. And the way your post is arranged it appears as if I did.

 

Why do you think I said:

I thought it was obvious I was quoting myself. Anybody could just search on it. What are computers for?

psik

 

What we intend to say in our own posts is always obvious to ourselves. You cannot assume what is obvious to you, is obvious to everyone else. Since I didn't specifically remember that you had made the statement that I re-quoted in blue, I wasn't sure who had said it. It is always good practice when quoting to include the authors name explicitly to avoid confusion. Especially since sometimes people jump into a thread from the middle rather than post number 1. Also unless it is only a post or two away, it is a good idea to include a link to the post. Something I have figured out fairly recently, being new to the forum myself.

 

Not that is that important, but this isn't my thread. It would be Jan Ardena's thread.

 

About 4 years ago...I first heard of 9/11 truth, on this very board. It was my first real exposure to conspiracy theories. I thought this debate would be easy, because their arguments are so weak. What I found was CT'ers hold on to their beliefs no matter what logic is presented to them. So I started investigating the CT mind...I wanted to know why CT'ers are so attached to their theories, that they can't see logic. I have concluded my study, and have found that the majority of truthers suffer from some sort of paranoid disorder or are just young and retarded. Their belief in conspiracy theories reinforces their delusion that someone is out to get them. Who is out to get them changes from nutter to nutter....for some it's the government...for others it's the Jews, for some it's the Illuminati or the Bankers or reptilians that inhabit the moon. While not all truthers may not be mentally ill...I have found the majority of the faithful are.

 

I think I am the only person on this board who has no clue who the Illuminati are or are supposed to be. Must be a conspiracy to keep me in the dark..... or my failure to google it on any of the many occasions that I have seen a reference to it. naah must be a conspiracy, the other suggestion is just absurd.

 

Well, SG...the Illuminati were real...back in 1776. They were a secret society formed to better man. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati. Conspiracy theorists believe this organization still exists and controls the world. They believe all of the world's rich people control pretty much everything you do.

 

What a disingenuous tactic. You know full well everyone makes a distinction between conspiracy theorists and the real research. Trying to play a semantic game with seagypsy doesn't change that.

 

It is not my fault if you regard the NIST report as REAL RESEARCH. It says in three places that they need to know the distribution of weight in the tower to analyse the impact of the plane on WTC2. Then it never even specifies the total amount of concrete in the towers.

Talking about any conspiracies without settling the physics is nonsense. I put people who believe the official story in the same category with no planers.

psik

 

You're right. It is not your fault the NIST report is regarded as real research. You haven't even read it, opting instead to word search and frown at the fact that certain buzzwords aren't used as many times as you'd like. So trust me, no one is accusing you of having any impact whatsoever on the acceptance of the NIST report as legitimate.

I know for a fact Grumpy already addressed this, so the fact that you simply repeat the same insanely-held notions despite having been corrected means you aren't any different than the "no planers" yourself.