Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why do some people seem to exist in order to "refute conspiracy theories"?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
Bonobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-02-10 03:09 AM
Original message
Why do some people seem to exist in order to "refute conspiracy theories"?
What is the psychological process working behind the minds of those who seem to devote so much time to "debunking"?

Is it a power trip? Or is it the encouraging illusion that the world is entirely explicable to them?

There must be a common thread connecting these kind of people.

Perhaps it is like religion, a way of assuring oneself that the boogeymen don't really exist?

This OP, by the way, has nothing to do with the arguments on either side. My question is about the mindset of a certain subset of people.

Much like the way some on this board ask "Why do some people believe in "conspiracy theories" (a ridiculous, slanted, prejudicial question loaded with assumptions, by the way), my question, to rephrase is "Why do some people believe that everything can be explained by the known facts"?
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-02-10 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
1. To protect the reputation of organizations and groups we belong to?
Edited on Fri Jul-02-10 09:58 AM by hack89
I don't want Truthers associated with the Democratic party. I don't want DU known as a hot spot for moon-bat conspiracy theories - look at how the Birthers have taken over FR to see what I don't want DU to become.

I put a lot of effort into supporting the Democratic party in the state of Rhode Island - I don't want my work undermined by having Truthers associated with the party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
whatchamacallit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-02-10 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. What a fucking joke!
Hey I don't want a bunch of narrow minded authoritarians associated the party, but I don't get to decide acceptable beliefs for all democrats. If protecting the reputation of the democratic party is really your motivation, then why not start with the original moonbats and exclude the religious? Total crap rationale.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-02-10 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Who are you calling...
a "narrow-minded authoritarian", dude? Since when is asking for evidence of claims "authoritarian"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
whatchamacallit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-02-10 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. I'm just saying your democratic litmus test is bullshit and you know it
Edited on Fri Jul-02-10 11:58 AM by whatchamacallit
News flash: It's not your fucking place to decide what democrats get to believe. Your absurd "I'm protecting the sanctity of my party" schtick is just a cover for your twisted little hobby.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-02-10 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. You can believe whatever the fuck ...
you want to believe. That's your right and I actually defend it. But, you're asking others to believe it without hard evidence. It's my right to call you on it. Labeling anyone who dares to call you on your lack of proof an "authoritarian" is a losing strategy, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
whatchamacallit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-02-10 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. I'm not asking you to believe shit
that's your deal, not mine. Please remove your chastity belt from the democratic party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-02-10 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. You're not asking people to...
believe your goofy, evidence-free bullshit? Please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
whatchamacallit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-02-10 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. I don't come here to convince you or anyone else I'm right
Edited on Fri Jul-02-10 12:38 PM by whatchamacallit
You know why? - and this is a big difference between us - I don't know the truth. It's you who has it all figured out. You feel it's your duty to spread the gospel, not me. I'm simply a skeptic. Learn the difference and deal with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-02-10 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Then....
educate yourself, dude. There's plenty of evidence there. Otherwise, present your case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
whatchamacallit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-02-10 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Again, unlike you
I don't have a case. I have doubts and questions. I continue to educate myself everyday, do you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-02-10 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. Yeah, I do.....
that's why I know more than you and can answer your stupid questions.

It's conspiracy theory protocol to claim things aren't known that actually are. That's why you aren't taken seriously here, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-02-10 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #4
26. I don't decide
I simply ensure that both sides of the story are there for all to see - after that it is up to each reader to decide what to believe. Considering the state of the Truth movement, it would appear your side is not doing a very convincing job getting the "truth" out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
whatchamacallit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-02-10 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. So desiring to purge the party of "truthers" is your way
of ensuring both sides of the story are there for all to see? That's rich. Seems to me, if you were so certain of the truth you wouldn't waste so much time down here. Your obsession is betrays you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-02-10 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. Who said anything about a purge?
Edited on Fri Jul-02-10 04:33 PM by hack89
Truthers don't represent that much of a threat that a purge is needed. The past eight years have clearly shown that simply countering every goofy CT with clear logic is enough. How else do you explain why the Truth movement has declined so much?

I don't spend that much time here - especially recently since there have been no new truther arguments to refute. I enjoy the give and take - I certainly have no illusions that anything I do here is important. A tiny remote corner of the internet is not where I would spend my time on important things. Do you think that DU amounts to a hill of beans in the grand scheme of things? Do you really think an important battle is being fought here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
whatchamacallit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-02-10 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Do *I* think an important battle is being fought here?
Edited on Fri Jul-02-10 05:33 PM by whatchamacallit
Obviously you do, else why bother? How do I put this... The Bush Administration was a criminal enterprise with a vested interest in the fruits of 9/11. That you buy their cock & bull says a lot more about you than me. Go on with your smug superiority (ignorance), and claim this is just casual fun for you. I know better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-02-10 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. I don't think an important battle is being waged here
it used to be interesting here and I enjoyed the complex, detailed and technical threads that were generated. But that no longer happens - there have been no new 911 "facts" and "evidence" in several years. Surely you must agree that the truth community has hit a long dry spell.

The Bush administration is long gone. Democrats are in charge in case you haven't noticed. Why hasn't the truth come out? Is Obama covering for Bush? Or is he simply clueless?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
whatchamacallit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-02-10 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. That the OCT believe
the evidence and information provided by the Bush Administration and their surrogates is beyond refute is a sad joke. Much of it theory itself, adopted as unassailable fact. You guys are so funny, you claim to have "won the war" but here you are... If it's really over then you've got some ahem issues. BTW in regards to Obama, it could be either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-02-10 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. But take away the OCT
Edited on Fri Jul-02-10 06:24 PM by hack89
and the truth movement still has nothing. You make unsubstantiated claims over and over again and get hammered every time.

You keep bleating "OCT OCT" as if it was some magic shield that protects you from logic. The simple fact of the matter is the OCT can be a total lie and every 911 Truther CT would still be absolute BS. Face it - the 911 truth movement exists only by nit picking anomalies in the official story. The Truth movement fails the basic test that would lend validity to their theories - they are complete unable to independently present a single detailed, coherent and comprehensive theory on what happened on 911. If you could tell the world what exactly happened on 911 then the OCT becomes irrelevant. But you can't answer the simple question "what really happened on 911?" So tell me - can you actually tell me what happened on 911 without once mentioning the OCT, NIST or Bush?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
whatchamacallit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-02-10 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. What you fail to grasp
Is that the official conspiracy theory is not coherent and comprehensive either. It's a hodgepodge of unproved theories and models, improbable events and "coincidences", conflicting time lines and testimony, missing and assumed evidence, and ass covering. It's not all there and indisputable like you pretend, you just CHOOSE to believe what is there. The OCT *is* a total lie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-02-10 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. So what?
Truther theories like mini-nukes, thermite, CD and no planes don't require faith in the OCT to refute. The knowledge required is universal - anyone with a basic engineering or scientific education can refute them.

So we still have this fundamental problem - the truth community can't tell us what happened. Whey do you think there are only two choices - the OCT or your CTs? What if both are wrong?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
whatchamacallit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-02-10 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. Yay progress!!!
I don't advance mini-nukes and the like. And it is quite possible that not only the far out theories are wrong but the OCT is wrong too! I greatly appreciate your willingness to consider that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rschop Donating Member (493 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-02-10 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #32
38. re: But you can't answer the simple question "what really happened on 911?"
Yes I can tell you exactly what happened on 9/11. See post #25.

My Journal has even more detail. The actual documents from the US governments own official web sites and source are located at www.eventson911.com.

This is the real official conspiracy theory since the information was created by combining all of the reports and documents from the US government investigations of 9/11, plus others that come from US government sources, like the account of FBI Agent Ali Soufan and the book State of Denial by Bob Woodward.

It turns out FBI Agent Ali Soufan was left out of all of the official reports on 9/11 to hide the fact that the CIA did not respond to his many official requests for information on Walid Bin Attash or the information the CIA had on the meeting in Kuala Lumpur.

By hiding FBI Agent Ali Soufan’s official requests, these reports could just say that the CIA did not share information with the FBI criminal investigators. When you know that they did not share this information even when given official requests from FBI criminal investigators, this becomes out and our criminal obstruction of an ongoing FBI criminal investigation into the murder of 17 US sailors.

It was not the fact that these 9/11 reports were totally wrong, each report just left out key details so no one could ever see the entire picture. By combining these reports it was possible to put the entire story back together again in one place.

And it was not that each report was 100% correct either, but it was fairly easy to see after a while which report was wrong and which report was correct when the various reports differed in important details. In general when one report had the more detail, it was in general the more correct, particularly when the other reports said no one could remember exactly what took place, in describing the exact same incident.



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-06-10 02:24 AM
Response to Reply #38
71. More of your bullshit, dude....
the link below will take you to the transcript of Soufan's full testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Of course, it's in the interest of the sales of your book to pretend otherwise.

http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=3842&wit_id=7906
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-05-10 03:38 AM
Response to Reply #1
52. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
ablewon Donating Member (42 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-11-10 07:50 AM
Response to Reply #1
81. Maybe you should put some effort into learning more...
about the lies of the OCT. Or, maybe you prefer that the Party you support becomes known as the "Lies & Miracles Party".
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-02-10 10:50 AM
Response to Original message
2. Because the vast majority of conspiracy theories paraded around here are...
totally devoid of hard evidence and are deeply embarrassing to progressivism, the Democratic Party and DU.

I mean, c'mon...the moon landing was impossible because E.T.'s have us "quarantined" on Earth, no planes hit the Pentagon or the WTC and the towers were brought down by "controlled demolition" using "mini-nukes" and/or Oswald was "framed"?

I believe DU and the Democratic Party are worthy of defending them against unhinged theories and the people who embrace them.

It's called "critical thinking".
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
whatchamacallit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-02-10 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. Answer this
If someday it was proved the US government was involved in the attacks, who then would be an "embarrassment" to progressivism, the Democratic Party and DU? Self righteous, self appointed, protecters of DU are the real embarrassment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-02-10 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Keywords....
"If someday it was proved the US government was involved in the attacks"

I'm all ears, dude. So far you've got dick. That's why you keep trying to make it about us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
whatchamacallit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-02-10 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Obviously for you history has been totally written
Edited on Fri Jul-02-10 12:19 PM by whatchamacallit
So irrefutably that you feel you own the truth, and are justified in calling those skeptical of the government account an "embarrassment". Unfortunate. BTW, you make it about yourself by showing up here everyday to perform the duder dance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-02-10 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. What's embarrassing is...
your lack of critical thinking skills and hard evidence, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
whatchamacallit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-02-10 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. Sorry, nobody cares what you think
I mean really... insignificant chat room blowhard declares my critical think skills aren't up to snuff. Oh noes, whatever will I do???
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-02-10 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. You could start by acknowledging...
the weakness of your position and "arguments" and quit going off on people who merely challenge you for evidence, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
whatchamacallit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-02-10 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. Or
I could continue living my excellent life and not worry about what SDuderstadt thinks. Hard choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-02-10 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. Then quit bothering me....
dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
whatchamacallit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-02-10 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. Ha love it...
I respond to Hack, you jump in to create your typical tit for tat, you get shut down, and leave playing the victim card. You responded to my post remember?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-02-10 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. "you get shut down"
Dude, what, precisely, is your argument? Do you have one? We already know you have no evidence, just "doubts" and "questions".
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-02-10 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. so prove it already
I don't mind being wrong.
Show me that the US Government was behind 9/11.
Not "theories" or pictures that "don't look right" or idle speculation.
Just solid evidence.
I actually look forward to being proved wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-02-10 11:04 AM
Response to Original message
3. "some people exist"?
just to "refute conspiracy theories"?
that's a strange way to explain one's existence.
are you saying that if all CTers magically stop existing, then people who don't buy every CT that rolls down the block would also magically stop existing?
very odd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-02-10 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #3
34. I was created by the alien overlords with the sole purpose
Edited on Fri Jul-02-10 06:59 PM by LARED
of debunking CT's. Once they stop I will be either reprogrammed or put in the obsolescences warehouse.

So I send out this plea to all CT'ers. Please keep them coming as I want to LIVE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-02-10 02:03 PM
Response to Original message
25. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
KDLarsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-02-10 07:39 PM
Response to Original message
35. I'm not sure about the other debunkers
But I mainly do this for the fun, watching people rage fly into fits of rage when I post a counter to the precious little pet theory du jour.

Then again, as of late, the Dungeon has pretty much been reduced to an ever-dwindling number of users on either side, which have the effect of pretty much turning every thread into a snipe-fight of satirical remarks etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-03-10 07:14 AM
Response to Original message
39. Because bullshit never did anyone any good
Your question speaks volumes about how little you care about the truth. That makes you my natural enemy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rschop Donating Member (493 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-03-10 10:21 AM
Response to Original message
40. Repost from a post in 2009; Why do some people seem to exist in order to "refute conspiracy theories
Edited on Sat Jul-03-10 10:21 AM by rschop
Why do some people seem to exist in order to "refute conspiracy theories"?

re: etiquette rules for the September 11 forum.
Posted by rschop in September 11
Wed Oct 14th 2009, 05:22 AM

This Forum should be about the fact that 3000 people on 9/11 were murdered by the al Qaeda terrorists and why these attacks were allowed to take place when the CIA and FBI HQ had known about Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, two of the al Qaeda terrorists on AA 77, since January 2000, knew they had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing, knew on August 22, 2001 that both were inside of the US and even knew they were here to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack that would kill thousands of Americans.

Instead of raising the alarm to make sure these attacks were prevented the CIA and FBI HQ not only kept this information a secret from the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing, but when these FBI investigators accidentally found out that these long time la Qaeda terrorists were inside of the US, and even knew they were here to take part in a horrific al Qaeda attack, FBI HQ agents, who had been working with the CIA, shut down their investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, condemning almost 3000 people to be murdered on 9/11.

But the tragedy of this forum is instead of being a serious discussion of these issues in a civilized manner, several of the posters on this forum post very demeaning and for lack of a better word, very snarky posts, with very obvious personal attacks and ad-hominem commentary. For whatever reasons, and acknowledging that moderating this forum is a difficult task, many of these personal attacks and ad-hominem commentary in particular questioning the motives of posters seems to remain unfiltered.

The issues of why these attacks were allowed to happen when so much was already known about several of the hijackers is too important to not be discussed and answers found to these questions. It is unfortunate that this forum has become something less than what it could have become to have had substantial discussions of these issues so the DU members could have had a better understanding of these very important issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rschop Donating Member (493 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-03-10 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bonobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-04-10 07:42 AM
Response to Reply #40
44. Very eloquently stated. And so true.
Kinda what I am trying to hint at.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-04-10 02:21 AM
Response to Original message
42. Well you're not getting much of an answer to why, but this thread does illustrate...
that some people seem to exist only to combat, mainly through ridicule and content-free stalking, that which they label "conspiracy theory."
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-04-10 08:29 AM
Response to Reply #42
45. Some people who ask questions aren't looking for answers
Hence, the term "conspiracy theory" has come to mean something more than "a theory about a conspiracy."
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-04-10 07:37 AM
Response to Original message
43. A psychological profile of debunkers
What is the psychological process working behind the minds of those who seem to devote so much time to "debunking"?

The processes as best I can tell, are a strong motivation to help deluded people become more focused on a reality based framing. Altruistic to the core when it comes to helping those addicted to BS.

The "debunker" likes teaching other, values objective reasoning over the subjective, and are usually considered to be excellent lovers, and enjoys long walks in the park and sunset on the beach. Oh, and they love animals and small children, and volunteer at soup kitchens and donate most of their income to help the homeless. In short debunker are almost perfect.



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-04-10 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #43
46. Be honest. I don't think you believe that yourself.
How does this altruistic motivation square with the frequent use (in many, many cases that you can also see on this board) of insults (woo, twoofers, faux confessions of being spies exchanged among debunkers, accusations that some "CTs" are in it for the money and the rest are stupid, condescension, ridicule, etc. etc.)? Also, the easy invocation of platitudes as though they make a case in the place of the ample unreleased and uninvestigated evidence (never attribute to malice, always choose the simplest, never underestimate incompetence, shit happens, people are just looking for patterns where there are none, people find reassurance in a story, etc. etc.). These would indicate an indeed common irrational human motivation, to be right at all costs. We also see a lot of "team spirit," a related phenomenon. You and I specifically have occassionally had civil exchanges, so please take that question seriously. (For example, "Tu quoque" would not be an answer.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-04-10 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #46
47. I'm with Lared...
sorry about the "team spirit" JK.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-05-10 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #46
53. Come'on Jack you know what I wrote
was largely tongue and cheek. (except for the great lover bit).

I think your expectation of serious debate is not really going to work out. The bottom line is that the small percentage of legit 9/11 questions have been debated in the past by a host of people and the reality of the situation is that there is no process available to improve what we already know, unless someone that is legit and inside decides to tell what they know about these few issues. Please don't get the wrong idea. I am not changing sides, I am simply identifying with the serious (ie not reality challenged) truthers (or skeptic if you prefer) that know there are some legitimate questions without truly satisfactory answers. For instance who placed the put calls on 9/11? The answers provided in the so called official story could have been far more substantial. So it leaves one with the choice that either someone knew or there was an outlier that happened to stand out because of the scrutiny on transactions that day. Both solutions are quite possible.

The vast majority of 9/11 CT's are simply amusing and fascinating to watch. Where else can one get to watch and communicate with people that actually believe the WTC was blown up. So if I amuse myself with a little team spirit when pretending to be taking orders from our alien overlords, you will simply have to get over it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
noise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-05-10 11:52 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. An admission of sorts?
Edited on Mon Jul-05-10 11:54 PM by noise
no process available to improve what we already know


There is a process. It's called transparent government. Declassification.

Instead some debunkers want the public to simply have some sort of bizarre childish faith in government officials.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-06-10 12:36 AM
Response to Reply #54
57. Name one....n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
noise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-06-10 12:50 AM
Response to Reply #54
59. You
for one. You are always writing something like "Where is the evidence?" The suggestion being that if something was amiss then the great US media would have reported it or the great 9/11 Commission would have been sure to raise a fuss.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-06-10 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #59
60. Name one position I have adopted without....
significant evidence for it. I have never asked anyone to believe anything regarding 9/11 on faith, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
noise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-06-10 12:58 AM
Response to Reply #60
62. "Where is the evidence?"
You use this BS phrase to berate people who don't toe the establishment line.

Key evidence is classified. The people who could address the issues that Rschop has raised simply will not do so. The intelligence agencies will not declassify the 9/11 MFR's that deal with the al-Hazmi/al-Mihdhar sharing issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-06-10 01:04 AM
Response to Reply #62
64. "Where is the evidence?"
Dude...what a bullshit racket you've got going on there. Do you think it is somehow inappropiate to ask people who make extraordinary claims to provide some evidence of them????

Simple question: if you can't make your case because the evidence is "classified", upon what grounds do you draw your conclusions?

Simple questions:

1) Have you even read the 9/11 Commission Report in its entirety?

2) Do you admit we were attacked by al Qaeda on 9/11?

3) Do you have any evidence whatsoever that anyone in the U.S. government in any way intentionally aided in the attacks or simply allowed them to happen?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
noise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-06-10 01:16 AM
Response to Reply #64
69. It's not about me
It's entirely appropriate to ask for substantiation for beliefs about 9/11. It it also entirely appropriate for the government to provide a complete account of 9/11.

All I know is that we do not have a complete account of 9/11. Not because of the 9/11 truth movement but because the government will not release the records.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-06-10 01:18 AM
Response to Reply #69
70. I'm done, dude....
I try to engage on the facts, while you invent things you couldn't possibly know about me.

I'm simply not interested in you playing the "authoritarian card" every chance you get.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-06-10 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #54
72. "childish faith in government officials. "
So let me ask you this. What level of faith is appropriate for the government officials we elect. How do YOU discern what and when an official is acting in good faith or in bad faith?



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
noise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 01:12 AM
Response to Reply #72
74. I educate myself on the particular issue
With 9/11 one finds a blatant pattern of secrecy and cover-up. Some (like Farmer) have argued that this is run of the mill CYA. Bureaucratic ineptitude. An attempt to conceal incompetence.

It is difficult to understand why a citizen would not question such analysis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 04:28 AM
Response to Reply #74
75. Why is that hard to understand?
Bureaucratic ineptitude is alive and well, and is clearly what an educated person would conclude regarding 9/11's events. Frankly it seems to me an uninformed, biased person would conclude the event of 9/11 are part of a huge conspiracy perpetrated by our government for reasons that are at best speculative and unclear.

Perhaps your perception of educated differs from the majority of others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
noise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #75
78. It doesn't make sense
Edited on Wed Jul-07-10 04:12 PM by noise
For some reason you appear content to take Farmer at his word even though many of the records are still classified. Why do you trust him so much? As I noted down thread, he admitted he doesn't know what happened in relation to al-Hazmi/al-Mihdhar and the intelligence agencies.

I don't know what is being concealed from the public. That is the point. The secrecy is not ok in a representative democracy. The secrecy didn't take place in a vacuum. The questioning of good faith conduct isn't some sort of deranged analysis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #78
79. Have you ever considered that good faith conduct
can provide for some secrecy?

If instance I know I will be firing two people in about two months. Should I in good faith let them know that, or is it good faith to the company to keep this from them until it is appropriate to reveal?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rschop Donating Member (493 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-04-10 08:24 PM
Response to Original message
48. re: Complete answer as to why do some people seem to exist in order to "refute conspiracy theories"?
Edited on Sun Jul-04-10 08:26 PM by rschop
re: Why do some people seem to exist in order to "refute conspiracy theories"?

Several of the people who have posted on this forum, fit the description from the original question perfectly. They appear to exist only to refute conspiracy theories. As I had said before, "the tragedy of this forum is instead of being a serious discussion of these issues in a civilized manner, several of the posters on this forum post very demeaning and for lack of a better word, very snarky posts, with very obvious personal attacks and ad-hominem commentary. For whatever reasons, and acknowledging that moderating this forum is a difficult task, many of these personal attacks and ad-hominem commentary in particular questioning the motives of posters seems to remain unfiltered.” What is even more telling is that not one single debunker has never refuted even a single point with any verifiable facts concerning or even refuting as to why the CIA and FBI HQ had intentionally and deliberately allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to murder almost 3000 people on 9/11.


The issues of why these attacks were allowed to happen when so much was already known about several of the hijackers is too important to not be discussed and answers found to these questions. It is unfortunate that this forum has become something less than what it could have become to have had substantial discussions of these issues so the DU members could have had a better understanding of these very important issues."


“I hate to say it, but unless someone here can provide new information and not some uniformed “OPINION”, to effectively refute any of the evidence I had obtained, they should politely keep their comments to themselves."

I am reposting this again so my response is complete on not only as to why the CIA maintained secrecy in this case, but also to show that was possible to pierce this secrecy and find out exactly what had happened at the CIA and FBI HQ prior to the attacks on 9/11 that had allowed these attacks to take place.


From Thu Jan 14th 2010, 09:43 PM

The CIA and FBI HQ found out that both Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi were inside of the US on August 22, 2001, and even knew they were inside of the US in order to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack that would kill thousands. Yet the CIA and FBI HQ deliberately withheld this information from the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing.

But the CIA had been deliberately hiding the names Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi from the FBI Cole bombing investigators since the Cole bombing had taken place. When Walid Bin Attash, the mastermind of the Cole bombing, had been identified from a photograph of him taken at the al Qaeda planning meeting in January 2000, and the CIA also had photos of Mihdhar and Hazmi at the same meeting they knew, that these three long time al Qaeda terrorists had been part of the planning of the Cole bombing that had taken place at this meeting. The CIA also knew if the FBI Cole bombing investigators ever became aware of this information, it would expose the CIA culpability in allowing these attacks to have taken place. Just after Bin Attash had been identified at Kuala Lumpur the CIA started a massive wide ranging criminal conspiracy to hide this information from the FBI Cole bombing investigators.

There is direct evidence of the involvement in this conspiracy of Cofer Black, George Tenet, John Gannon, and the CIA Yemen station, the CIA Pakistan Station, the CIA Bin Laden unit with Richard Blee as its Chief, and Tom Wilshire, Deputy Chief of the Bin Laden unit. Wilshire had even been moved over to be Deputy Chief of the ITOS unit at the FBI in mid-May 2001 by Black and Tenet, with the concurrence of Freeh and Rolince, in order to find out what the FBI Cole criminal investigators had found out about the Kuala Lumpur meeting, and if they had found out that Mihdhar and Hazmi had been at that meeting with Walid bin Attash actually planning the bombing of the USS Cole.

It is clear from the DE 939 “Substitution for the testimony of John”, aka Tom Wilshire, entered into the Moussaoui trial, that Wilshire in his July 23, 2001 email back to his CTC managers, Richard Blee, Chief of the Bin Laden unit, Cofer Black, head of the CIA CTC unit, and Director of the CIA George Tenet, clearly stated that Mihdhar would be found at the location of the next big al Qaeda attack.

Wilshire had already indicated, according to the DOJ IG report, in his July 5, 2001 email to his CTC managers that he thought at this point in time, that the people at Kuala Lumpur meeting were connected to the warnings the CIA and FBI had been receiving about a huge al Qaeda attack since April 2001.

It is also clear from document, DE 939, that Wilshire had been forbidden twice from giving this information to the FBI criminal investigators, by his CTC managers at the CIA on July 13, 2001, and again on July 23, 2001.

So it is clear the instructions to hide the information on the Kuala Lumpur meeting and the names Khalid al-Mihdhar, and Nawaf al-Hazmi from the FBI criminal investigators came from the very top of the CIA management at the very same time, that they were holding urgent meetings in the White House with Rice and Clarke, on July 10, 2001, and with Ashcroft and Rumsfeld on July 17, 2001 warning them a huge attack was just about to take place inside of the US that would kill thousands of Americans.

According to Bob Woodward’s book, State of Denial, Tenet and Black had already held a meeting with Richard Blee and other CIA managers earlier in July to ask where they all thought the massive al Qaeda attack they were being warned about would take place. The room went silent when Richard Blee stated, “They are coming here!”

On August 22, 2001, less than one month after Wilshire’s July 23, 2001 email to his CTC mangers on Mihdhar, FBI IOS Agent Margaret Gillespie at the CIA Bin Laden unit found out from the INS that both Mihdhar and Hazmi are inside of the US and took this information to FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi and CIA officer Tom Wilshire. Note on July 24, 2001 Gillespie had already found the CIR on Mihdhar’s travels to Kuala Lumpur and his US multi-entry visa that specified New York City as his destination, written up by FBI IOS Agent Doug Miller at the CIA Bin Laden unit on January 5, 2000. This CIR that had written on the bottom; “Blocked by order of the Deputy Chief” (of the bin Laden unit, Tom Wilshire).

Wilshire and Corsi started to put together the EC to start an investigation of Mihdhar on August 22, 2001. Document DE 469 from the Moussaoui trial is the actual EC written up by FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi, that connected both Mihdhar and Hazmi not only to the east Africa bombings, but also to the Cole bombing.

When FBI Agent Steve Bongardt, supervisor of the FBI Cole bombing investigators in New York, accidentally got Corsi’s EC to start an intelligence investigation of Mihdhar on August 28, 2001 he called Corsi to demand that the criminal investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi go to his FBI Cole investigating team. Corsi told him that he could not investigate Mihdhar and Hazmi due to the restrictions on NSA information going to FBI criminal investigators.

But it is clear from DE 448, the release from the NSA to Corsi, that the NSA had already approved FBI Agent Dina Corsi to pass the NSA information on Mihdhar and Hazmi and the fact they attended the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting to the FBI criminal investigators in New York, on August 27, 2001 in a release that was sent to Corsi on August 28, 2001. The release even listed the recipients as “The FBI criminal Cole bombing investigators in New York”, Steve Bongardt and his team.

Page 306 of the DOJ IG report says:

Bongardt received the EC, Corsi’s EC, on August 28. Shortly thereafter, Bongardt, Corsi, and Rod Middleton, (Corsi’s boss), engaged in a conference call to discuss whether the case should be opened as a criminal instead of an intelligence investigation. Corsi told the OIG that the information on Mihdhar was received through intelligence channels and, because of restrictions on using intelligence information, could not be provided directly to the criminal agents working the Cole investigation. Rod Middleton told the OIG he had concurred with Corsi’s assessment that the matter should be an intelligence investigation.

Corsi with Rod Middleton’s concurrence ordered Bongardt to not have anything to do with any investigation of Mihdhar and to destroy any and all information that he had on Mihdhar. She later tells him, as described in the September 20, 2002 public hearings for the Joint Inquiry of 9/11, that if one piece of paper ever surfaced at the FBI with his name and Mihdhar’s name, he was through as an FBI Agent at the FBI.

Since Bongardt did not see any connection between the NSA information to any FISA warrant, he asked Corsi on August 28, 2001 to get a legal ruling from the NSLU, the legal unit at FBI HQ on this issue, to see if he and his team could take part in the investigation and search for Mihdhar and Hazmi.

On August 29, 2001, Corsi tells Bongardt that the NSLU attorney had ruled that Bongardt and his team could have no part in any investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

Email, from FBI Special Agent Steve Bongardt back to Dina Corsi, 908/29 8:38 AM said:

Dina- where is "the wall" defined? Isn't it dealing with FISA information"? I think everyone is still confusing this issue. I know we discussed this issue ad nasuseum but "the wall" concept grew out of the fear that FISA would be obtained as opposed to a Title III.

Bongardt even told Corsi when she told him that he could take part in the investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, “why do you think they are in the US, do you think they are going to f**king Disney Land!” It is clear that Bongardt knew immediately when he found out that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US that these long time al Qaeda terrorists were inside of the US in order to take part in a massive al Qaeda terrorist attack!

Sherry Sabol is the NSLU attorney that Corsi had contacted and from Sabol’s testimony to DOJ IG investigators, on November 7, 2002, it is clear that Sabol had ruled in fact just the opposite from what Corsi had told FBI Agent Bongardt. Sabol had ruled that Bongardt and his team could be part of any investigation and search for of Mihdhar since the NSA information had no connection to any FISA warrant.

Sabol told Corsi said if she was still confused she, (Corsi) could go and get a ruling from the NSA, unaware Corsi had already obtained approval from the NSA to transfer the NSA information over to the FBI two days earlier on August 27, 2001. See testimony of Sherry Sabol, 9/11 Commission report p 538, footnote 81.

According to the DOJ IG report, on August 30, 2001 the photograph of Walid Bin Attash, mastermind of the Cole bombing, taken at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting in January 2000 was sent by the CIA to Rod Middleton, Corsi’s supervisor. So on this date, Middleton has photographic proof that Mihdhar and Hazmi, who also had been photographed at this meeting, were at the Kuala Lumpur meeting with Bin Attash actually planning the Cole bombing. This is a crime and directly connects both Mihdhar and Hazmi, who the FBI criminal investigators now knew were inside of the US, to the crime of planning the Cole bombing.

The DOJ IG report had stated that on August 22, 2001, FBI Agent Dina Corsi was already aware that the CIA had this photograph of Bin Attash taken at Kuala Lumpur and even knew that the CIA had been deliberately keeping this photograph and the fact that Bin Attash had been at this Kuala Lumpur meeting with Mihdhar and Hazmi planning the Cole bombing, secret from the FBI Cole bombing investigators in New York and their supervisor FBI Agent Steve Bongardt. This information clearly meant that the investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi should have gone to FBI Agent Steve Bongardt and his team, since this was the photographic proof that both Mihdhar and Hazmi, known to be long time al Qaeda terrorists connected to the east Africa bombings, had also taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing.

And yet in spite of this information and the fact that on August 28, 2001 Middleton, had been on the phone call with Corsi and Bongardt, shutting down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, Middleton never called Bongardt back to undo the damage he had done in shutting down this investigation earlier.

The CIA working with these FBI HQ agents had not only criminally withheld critical information from the Cole bombing investigators in a massive criminal conspiracy, but had then shut down Bongardt’s investigation when Bongardt accidentally found out that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US and knew these al Qaeda terrorists were here only in order to take part in another horrific al Qaeda terrorists attack.

It is now clear that the CIA working with FBI HQ agents they had subjugated had intentionally shut down the only FBI criminal investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, prior to the attacks on 9/11 that could have prevented these attacks from taking place. Since shutting down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi was deliberate, it is all but impossible to believe that when the CIA and FBI HQ shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi that they all, including the senior managers at the CIA and even the FBI who were directing the actions of Wilshire, Corsi and Middleton, did not know that thousands of Americans were going to perish as a direct result of their actions.

NOTE, the information presented here and on www.eventson911.com are just the tip of an enormous ice berg detailing the criminal and nefarious actives at both the CIA and FBI HQ that had allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place.

See my Journal and/or www.eventson911.com for additional details on all of this, including the documents that actually are the iron clad proof!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-04-10 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #48
49. Jesus, dude....
how many times are you going to post essentially the same thing?

2nd question: why isn't anyone who matters taking your "research" to heart?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rschop Donating Member (493 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-04-10 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. RE:Jesus dude........
Thanks, you just made my point....
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-05-10 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #50
51. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
noise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-05-10 11:59 PM
Response to Reply #51
55. You do ask a good question
why hasn't anyone like Sy Hersh picked up your banner?


The information is credible and the analysis is sound so there must be another reason why journalists have avoided these lines of inquiry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-06-10 12:35 AM
Response to Reply #55
56. Ummm
it's because it's NOT credible information nor is it remotely sound analysis, that's why. Duh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
noise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-06-10 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #56
58. The information
consists of government reports, Moussaoui trial evidence and the work of journalist Lawrence Wright. Are you truly suggesting these sources aren't credible?

What is your deal? You sure seem to take issue with anyone who dares to question authority.

Why haven't these officials come forward to explain their conduct? IMO they owe explanations to the public.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-06-10 12:55 AM
Response to Reply #58
61. "You sure seem to take issue with anyone who dares to question authority"
Does Wright claim someone other than al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11? No.

Does Wright claim that anyone within the U.S. government aided the attacks or simply looked the other way? No.

If you seriously want debate on this topic, you can drop the bullshit insinuation I'm an "authoritarian" right now and start dealing with actual facts, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
noise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-06-10 01:00 AM
Response to Reply #61
63. Wright wasn't able to get a complete account of
the al-Hazmi/al-Mihdhar sharing issues. This isn't my opinion as he has admitted this. Farmer was also unable to get a complete account and he too admits this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-06-10 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #63
65. Simple question, dude...
Do either Farmer or Wright claim that anyone other than al Qaeda attacked on 9/11????
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
noise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-06-10 01:06 AM
Response to Reply #65
66. No they do not
I never stated that they claimed otherwise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-06-10 01:08 AM
Response to Reply #66
68. No, you conveniently left that out....
leaving the reader with the impression that they do.


I'm done with your bullshit, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PufPuf23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-06-10 01:07 AM
Response to Original message
67. To bound "acceptable reality"' to limit personal and collective nutiness
and chaos in the world in the dis-jointed reality where we exist at the moment?

Some are hardwired to be that way and there are operatives as well.

Where there is media -- communication in general -- there is distortion by human nature, technology, and deliberate spin for special interests.

We live a life analygous to a game of telephone tag gossip.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ohio Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-06-10 10:48 PM
Response to Original message
73. Well... it depends
Some of the 9/11 theories are just so mind numbingly stupid that I'm curious if I can try to determine if the poster actually believes it or is just yanking chains. Some I find offensive on a personal level as they require friends and family to either be complete morons or liars. Some because I happen to know something about the topic, like the continuity of government one. Mostly though I could give a rats ass what anyone believes.

"Why do some people believe that everything can be explained by the known facts"?

This is really a very different question then the one posed in the title of the OP. I would say it is true that not everything can be explained by the known facts. I would also say that it was true that sometimes they can. The concept I am getting from this question is that until all facts are known, nothing can really be explained. I find this a good rule for scientific research but for everyday life? No, I don't think so, we act and decide on things all the time without knowing all of the facts. I would even go as far as to say it is next to impossible to know all the facts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 11:49 AM
Response to Original message
76. because
some of us are paid to do so
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
snooper2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 02:25 PM
Response to Original message
77. because maybe one of these days one of these truther-mooner-folks
May read one of our posts and think...


Damn, maybe we really did land on the moon!

Shit, maybe a plane really did crash into the pentagon!

And then a light bulb will be lit, and they will have a realization. That it wasn't BO that was driving folks away every time they tried to strike up a conversation at the bar :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-08-10 01:36 PM
Response to Original message
80. What do you say to holocaust deniers and birthers?
Edited on Thu Jul-08-10 01:37 PM by jberryhill
Do you engage in "power trips" with them?

Or do you believe the "Official Story" of the holocaust and Obama's birth?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 08:46 AM
Response to Original message
82. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Twist_U_Up Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 06:37 PM
Response to Original message
83. because they can hide behind a keyboard and call themselves almighty
power trips is all
put them in public with this attitude
Ha
can you say ass whipped?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #83
84. Dude...
you couldn't whup your own ass...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #83
85. yes tuutuu
please present your "theories" and "evidence" in public.
start with the families of those killed on 9/11.
I'm sure they would loooove to hear from you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #83
86. Truly funny stuff. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-14-10 07:20 PM
Response to Original message
87. I doubt that the "rationalists" here
(yes I consider myself a rationalist and a debunker of conspiracy theories)

would agree with "everything can be explained by the known facts".

But they probably would agree with "everything can be understood or explained through natural laws." Keep in mind that we still have much to learn about natural laws. Further there will always be events that cannot be explained due to insufficient or ambiguous data. (A true scientist or rationalist would have to accept this, and would generally be agitated by suspect conclusions that were reached with a lack of supporting evidence.)

As for conspiracy theories, I classify them as attempts to explain events without sufficient evidence or in contradiction to evidence, often replacing the lack of evidence with demagoguery.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-14-10 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #87
88. "often replacing the lack of evidence with demagoguery."
or just plain batshit crazy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Dec 22nd 2024, 09:01 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC