‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane, government dupes crazy and hostile

Discussion in '9/11' started by Kokomojojo, Nov 25, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Brother Jonathan

    Brother Jonathan Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,610
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think I'll let you do your own homework... meanwhile I'll just sit here and giggle at those who do not have an even basic level of understanding of the laws of motion.
     
  2. LogicallyYours

    LogicallyYours New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    2,233
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  3. Brother Jonathan

    Brother Jonathan Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,610
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Seriously, you do not know what that gif proves do you? Interesting. And all this time you have been pretending to debunk the professional high rise building experts. David Chandler knows what that gif proves.

    MOD EDIT>>>SPAMMING <<<
     
  4. djlunacee

    djlunacee New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2013
    Messages:
    1,489
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  5. djlunacee

    djlunacee New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2013
    Messages:
    1,489
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's what I thought, what a coward. Can't even back your own claim. You realize that you have now shown that no one should take anything you post seriously. You can't do the work, cause you have no understanding of it. You should just admit it and move on.
     
  6. djlunacee

    djlunacee New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2013
    Messages:
    1,489
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Psssst.....David Chandler was a high school teacher.....he has also been debunked numerous times.
     
  7. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Can't answer,can you?
     
  8. Brother Jonathan

    Brother Jonathan Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,610
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I am enjoying the comedy. You guys are supposed to be professional debunkers and when somebody posts a simple gif which disproves your "debunking" and none of you know what it proves is comical. I did not post the gif so I have no responsibility to tell you professional debunkers what it proves other than it proves you know nothing about the fundamental laws of motion. LOL. This is quite telling.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Yes, I understand exactly what it proves. Do you?

    - - - Updated - - -

    You debunker you.
     
  9. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  10. Brother Jonathan

    Brother Jonathan Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,610
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You live in Texas, right?
     
  11. djlunacee

    djlunacee New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2013
    Messages:
    1,489
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You are golden in that realm, you do have a knack for it. Especially that 2000 architects and engineers line.

    It's quite simple what the gif proves and that is nothing, the fact that you do not realize this is comic gold. And it is also the reason why when pressed into discussion you can't even begin to explain the laws of motion. That must be due to your 7th grade physics not being enough as I stated earlier, Pure comedic gold. There are 3 laws of motion which were violated?





    I have demonstrated that I know exactly what it shows and that you obviously do not.





    Nah. I just bring the truth.
     
  12. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You 'understand' what it proves,yet you won't tell.......is it a secret?...if you tell me does someone have to die?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Yes,I do.
     
  13. jafc

    jafc Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2012
    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    The burden of proof is on you and truther friends not me I'm quite happy with what I've been told. Every thing falls on truthers to prove their theories because at the end of the day that's all they are.
    So over to you
     
  14. Brother Jonathan

    Brother Jonathan Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,610
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This was gold! The debunkers had no clue what it proved and since djlunacee couldn't figure it out he finally determined it proved nothing! LOL. These debunkers don't even have a fundamental understanding of the laws of motion, yet they have debunked professional building experts with 40 years in the high rise building business. Comedy at it's finest. Thanks for the gif. LOL.

    MOD EDIT>>>SPAMMING <<<
     
  15. jafc

    jafc Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2012
    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Honestly I think it's about time put up or shut up prove what you believe instead of pushing that video.
    You claim to be somekind of expert on building or something but I've yet to see you put forward you own explanation to what happened. And do you honestly think a gif of less than 3 seconds blows the conspiracy open wide. And you wonder why you've got nowhere in 12 years.
     
  16. LogicallyYours

    LogicallyYours New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    2,233
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....so, what's your point?
     
  17. Brother Jonathan

    Brother Jonathan Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,610
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You debunkers gave me a serious laugh out loud tonight. Thanks for the comedy. Tomorrow, if you still haven't figured out what it proves, then pose the question to Kokomojojo. Kokomojojo knows exactly what it proves, as do I, and maybe he will tell you debunkers, who claim to have debunked 40 year professional building experts, what it proves. Until then, study 7th grade physics... or 12th grade physics in Texas.
     
  18. LogicallyYours

    LogicallyYours New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    2,233
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sure he does....you mean like two retards who smile and gurgle to each other like their own "special" language.
     
  19. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Still don't know,i see.

    And don't be an ass,it's 9th grade
     
  20. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    7,006
    Likes Received:
    1,331
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm more than able to explain Euler's buckling equation to people who think the collapse of the WTC can be solved with 7th grade physics, but I have to remind you all that this is a thread about a study that the OPer did not read. This thread is not about physics at all. On the contrary, and quite ironically, it's about a study called &#8220;What about Building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories,&#8221; by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent (UK). I say, "quite ironically" because the study is named after the exact phenomenon that took place in this very thread. A conspiracy theorist made a claim that is not supported by the evidence they offer in support of their claim. "What about building 7?" is exactly how a conspiracy theorist responds to the question "did you read the study you claim supports your statement that "conspiracy theorists are sane and government dupes are hostile?"

    Clearly, a conspiracy theorist would rather change the subject, than face the fact that there is a preponderance of evidence that refutes their simplistic world view that nothing is quite as it seems, and that most of what we are told is a lie. For many conspiracists, there are two worlds: one real and (mostly) unseen, the other a sinister illusion meant to cover up the truth; and evidence against the latter is evidence for the former.

    (that statement was taken directly from the conclusion of the study that the truther who started this thread didn't read and when confronted with that fact claimed was outdated crap)
     
  21. Brother Jonathan

    Brother Jonathan Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,610
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0

    You say that as if you yourself are not a conspiracy theorist. Do you believe that 19 guys with boxcutters attacked the Pentagon on 9/11? Or any fraction of those guys did?
     
  22. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    5 did.
    And it wasn't just 'boxcutters'
     
  23. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    7,006
    Likes Received:
    1,331
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I know where the post button is. If I wanted to post my thesis on the subject I would.

    But let's take a look at the underlying implication of your question. Let's question your question.

    Do you believe that the United States is in possession of an omnipotent federal government that is impervious to attack?

    Is your problem with that belief a prejudicial racial one? Are you unable to believe that so called bearded cave dwellers were capable of conducting a successful coordinated attack against the most powerful nation on the planet?

    Is your problem a political one? Are you able to believe that the existing leadership was infallible?

    Is your problem a logically inconsistent? Do you believe that interdenominational beings control all information (I've actually heard that here) or do you believe that the U.S. government is in possession of super advanced directed energy weapons that they needed to use on Americans in order to generate support from Americans before they could use them on enemies?

    Is your problem based on a preexisting bias? Do you believe that the attack was carried out by someone other than 19 hijackers because that's what the authority said and the authority never tells the truth?

    If it's that last one, that's what the study posted in the original post concluded. They found that conspiracy theorists tend to support theories that support their broader world view regardless of the logical consistency of the supporting evidence. They state that conspiracy theorists look for anomalies, not congruences. In effect, they're not at all interested in what happened. They're more interested in exposing an authority as a fraud, regardless of reality, evidence, or truth.

    In another study, the same researchers even found that conspiracy theorists are willing to equally accept views that are completely contradictory. For example, a conspiracy theorist is equally willing to believe that princess Diana was murdered, and that her death was faked and she's still alive. To them, the reality is inconsequential. They don't care about that. All they care about is disproving what they think the authorities are lying to them about.
     
  24. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,138
    Likes Received:
    396
    Trophy Points:
    83


    that references their model not the real building DUH
     
  25. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,138
    Likes Received:
    396
    Trophy Points:
    83

    and the lastest findings show that official story huggers are bat (*)(*)(*)(*) crazy


    In other words, among people who comment on news articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two to one. That means it is the pro-conspiracy commenters who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered minority.

    Perhaps because their supposedly mainstream views no longer represent the majority, the anti-conspiracy commenters often displayed anger and hostility: &#8220;The research&#8230; showed that people who favoured the official account of 9/11 were generally more hostile when trying to persuade their rivals.&#8221;

    Additionally, it turned out that the anti-conspiracy people were not only hostile, but fanatically attached to their own conspiracy theories as well. According to them, their own theory of 9/11 &#8211; a conspiracy theory holding that 19 Arabs, none of whom could fly planes with any proficiency, pulled off the crime of the century under the direction of a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan &#8211; was indisputably true. The so-called conspiracists, on the other hand, did not pretend to have a theory that completely explained the events of 9/11: &#8220;For people who think 9/11 was a government conspiracy, the focus is not on promoting a specific rival theory, but in trying to debunk the official account.&#8221;

    In short, the new study by Wood and Douglas suggests that the negative stereotype of the conspiracy theorist &#8211; a hostile fanatic wedded to the truth of his own fringe theory &#8211; accurately describes the people who defend the official account of 9/11, not those who dispute it.

    Both of these findings are amplified in the new book Conspiracy Theory in America by political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith, published earlier this year by the University of Texas Press. Professor deHaven-Smith explains why people don&#8217;t like being called &#8220;conspiracy theorists&#8221;: The term was invented and put into wide circulation by the CIA to smear and defame people questioning the JFK assassination! &#8220;The CIA&#8217;s campaign to popularize the term &#8216;conspiracy theory&#8217; and make conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility must be credited, unfortunately, with being one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time.&#8221;

    In other words, people who use the terms &#8220;conspiracy theory&#8221; and &#8220;conspiracy theorist&#8221; as an insult are doing so as the result of a well-documented, undisputed, historically-real conspiracy by the CIA to cover up the JFK assassination. That campaign, by the way, was completely illegal, and the CIA officers involved were criminals; the CIA is barred from all domestic activities, yet routinely breaks the law to conduct domestic operations ranging from propaganda to assassinations.

    DeHaven-Smith also explains why those who doubt official explanations of high crimes are eager to discuss historical context. He points out that a very large number of conspiracy claims have turned out to be true, and that there appear to be strong relationships between many as-yet-unsolved &#8220;state crimes against democracy.&#8221; An obvious example is the link between the JFK and RFK assassinations, which both paved the way for presidencies that continued the Vietnam War. According to DeHaven-Smith, we should always discuss the &#8220;Kennedy assassinations&#8221; in the plural, because the two killings appear to have been aspects of the same larger crime.

    Psychologist Laurie Manwell of the University of Guelph agrees that the CIA-designed &#8220;conspiracy theory&#8221; label impedes cognitive function. She points out, in an article published in American Behavioral Scientist (2010), that anti-conspiracy people are unable to think clearly about such apparent state crimes against democracy as 9/11 due to their inability to process information that conflicts with pre-existing belief.

    In the same issue of ABS, University of Buffalo professor Steven Hoffman adds that anti-conspiracy people are typically prey to strong &#8220;confirmation bias&#8221; &#8211; that is, they seek out information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs, while using irrational mechanisms (such as the &#8220;conspiracy theory&#8221; label) to avoid conflicting information.

    The extreme irrationality of those who attack &#8220;conspiracy theories&#8221; has been ably exposed by Communications professors Ginna Husting and Martin Orr of Boise State University. In a 2007 peer-reviewed article entitled &#8220;Dangerous Machinery: &#8216;Conspiracy Theorist&#8217; as a Transpersonal Strategy of Exclusion,&#8221; they wrote:
    &#8220;If I call you a conspiracy theorist, it matters little whether you have actually claimed that a conspiracy exists or whether you have simply raised an issue that I would rather avoid&#8230; By labeling you, I strategically exclude you from the sphere where public speech, debate, and conflict occur.&#8221;

    But now, thanks to the internet, people who doubt official stories are no longer excluded from public conversation; the CIA&#8217;s 44-year-old campaign to stifle debate using the &#8220;conspiracy theory&#8221; smear is nearly worn-out. In academic studies, as in comments on news articles, pro-conspiracy voices are now more numerous &#8211; and more rational &#8211; than anti-conspiracy ones.


    so whats your point
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page