It's not a conspiracy

[PreKe]

I wonder what Bin Laden's brother and the Carlyle Group were meeting about.

How is that relevant? See, this is typical of conspiracy theorists: Make up all sorts of crazy stuff and look for connections where there are none.

Like a controlled demolition couldn't have caused that pivot? Please...

So why didn't it look or sound like a controlled demolition? Where were the rhythmical explosions? Why did the building collapse from the top down rather than bottom up?

And how could the plane fly into a building rigged with explosives without setting them all off prematurely?

And how could the people working in the building actually work there when all walls had to be drilled full of holes and have explosives stuffed into them? Not only would it be extremely dangerous to work there, but it would be impossible to stuff dynamite everywhere without anyone noticing.

So come on now, tell us how all this is supposed to have magically happened.

being able to form our own opinions is an important skill many people lack

Such as yourself?

Critical thinking is the key, but sadly many people lack the ability to think critically.

Such as yourself?

[s1k3sT]

So why didn't it look or sound like a controlled demolition? Where were the rhythmical explosions? Why did the building collapse from the top down rather than bottom up?

And how could the plane fly into a building rigged with explosives without setting them all off prematurely?

And how could the people working in the building actually work there when all walls had to be drilled full of holes and have explosives stuffed into them? Not only would it be extremely dangerous to work there, but it would be impossible to stuff dynamite everywhere without anyone noticing.

So come on now, tell us how all this is supposed to have magically happened.

I'm not interested in speculation, that is you, which is why you still believe the official conspiracy theory. I don't like to publicly advocate any "alternative" theories, I have my own opinions I like to keep to myself, but that's not the point. The point is you believe the official conspiracy theory, therefore the burden of proof is you, as the believer of the conspiracy theory.

[Mr. Gibs]

I'm not interested in speculation, that is you, which is why you still believe the official conspiracy theory. I don't like to publicly advocate any "alternative" theories, I have my own opinions I like to keep to myself, but that's not the point. The point is you believe the official conspiracy theory, therefore the burden of proof is you, as the believer of the conspiracy theory.

So you've pointed out 50 times so far. And have been told 50 times that you're wrong.

If you believe the official theory to be false you better have some rock solid evidence, and by rock solid I mean pictures of the so called bombs in the WTC etc. Since you don't you're obviously speculating.

But as you've proved a million times so far in this thread, your understanding of the English language is just as non-existent as your common sense.

[s1k3sT]

If you believe the official theory to be false you better have some rock solid evidence, and by rock solid I mean pictures of the so called bombs in the WTC etc. Since you don't you're obviously speculating.

But as you've proved a million times so far in this thread, your English is just as bad as your common sense.

Why am I the one that needs evidence when I'm not the one with the theory?! How hard it this to understand?! When you are the one promoting the theory (the official conspiracy theory of 9/11) it is up to you as the believer to provide "rock solid evidence". I just point out that you don't have rock solid evidence and you try asking me for evidence, that's not how it works. I know I've mentioned theories on here, but that was never my intention. My intention was to discuss the 1984 type meaning of the term conspiracy theory, not debate unprovable theories (from BOTH sides). Isn't it nice that when I go off topic my posts are moved and/or deleted, but when my whole topic is derailed nothing is done?! My topic was also borderline censored when they changed my title, but that's a different story. LOL, neowin gives me a headache...

[Phenom II]

lol @ you guys, I was up till 4am watching you fight, I wake up and you are still at it, do you Never sleep? lmao :laugh:

[Mr. Gibs]

Why am I the one that needs evidence when I'm not the one with the theory?! How hard it this to understand?! When you are the one promoting the theory (the official conspiracy theory of 9/11) it is up to you as the believer to provide "rock solid evidence". I just point out that you don't have rock solid evidence and you try asking me for evidence, that's not how it works.

We've given you evidence for our theory. Plenty of it infact; National Geographic reports, Purdue University studies and simulations, EMRTC reports and simulations, NIST reports and simulations. All of these have taken months of research, studies, calculations, simulations and have been done by experts (most of whom don't work for some Government agency). You choose to disregard them.

In return we asked you to provide evidence based on w/e theory you believe. You have failed to do so. That pdf file from some unknown magazine, and a youtube video from some random person were both very circumstantial and had no real backing to it.

I know I've mentioned theories on here, but that was never my intention. My intention was to discuss the 1984 type meaning of the term conspiracy theory, not debate unprovable theories (from BOTH sides).

If you were so inclined to make a post about the definition of the phrase conspiracy theory, you would have posted it in the general forum with a more appropriate title and first post. Such as: "What do you guys think the word conspiracy theory means?"

But instead you chose to post it under real world news and talk about 9/11 conspiracies. And instead of replying to almost every single post made in this topic, you would have left it alone and moved on. But nope, you couldn't even do that you had to come and keep posting what you think happened.

Isn't it nice that when I go off topic my posts are moved and/or deleted, but when my whole topic is derailed nothing is done?! Besides, it was also censored when they changed my title, but that's a different story.

LOL, neowin gives me a headache...

Nothing was censored, 2 threads with similar posts get merged. Standard forum rules.

If you don't like it, leave. Nobody is going to miss you, and nobody is going to cry and beg you to stay.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

I'm not interested in speculation, that is you, which is why you still believe the official conspiracy theory. I don't like to publicly advocate any "alternative" theories, I have my own opinions I like to keep to myself, but that's not the point. The point is you believe the official conspiracy theory, therefore the burden of proof is you, as the believer of the conspiracy theory.

No...the official story is not a "conspiracy theory" by today's definition. A conspiracy theory is the theory that something else happened...that the official story of x, y and z happened a different way.

For example...official story is that Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed JFK. Conspiracy theory: More than one person was behind the shooting (i.e. grassy knoll...CIA...etc)

Officially we landed on the moon. Conspiracy Theory: We didn't land on the moon. Everything was shot on a stage.

If something deviates from the official story of any event...it can be considered as a Conspiracy Theory. When you have a conspiracy theory...the burden of proof are on those that believe it happened different than the widespread belief/facts of the official story. In the case of 9/11, the official story is that Islamic extremist flew planes into the WTC, Pentagon and, after the passengers intervened, into the ground at Stonycreek Township

I really do not understand why you are trying to define something that is different than common knowledge/sense.

In regards to your last line, you are mistaken. If you believe something different happened on 9/11 than what the government, various researchers/experts and majority of the population claim...than the burden of proof is on you.

So, I guess that answers your original question. No, the official/documented events of 9/11 are not a "conspiracy theory". Anything that deviates away from it can be considered a conspiracy theory.

[s1k3sT]

lol @ you guys, I was up till 4am watching you fight, I wake up and you are still at it, do you Never sleep? lmao :laugh:

LOL, so true. I honestly wish this thread would end so I can start the topic I wanted to start. I wanted to discuss the doublethink meaning of conspiracy theory, not debate conspiracy theories themselves! If the title of my topic wasn't censored maybe it would have actually been on topic...

Anyway, thanks for being one of the few that isn't scared to look into the truth, no matter how uneasy it makes us feel.

We've given you evidence for our theory. Plenty of it infact; National Geographic reports, Purdue University studies and simulations, EMRTC reports and simulations, NIST reports and simulations. All of these have taken months of research, studies, calculations, simulations and have been done by experts (most of whom don't work for some Government agency). You choose to disregard them.

There is no evidence, that's the thing! They melted it all down and shipped it away asap! The "researchers" started with the official theory and ended with the same theory, but that's because they didn't even look into other possibilities.

[Mr. Gibs]

I wanted to discuss the doublethink meaning of conspiracy theory

You obviously still fail to understand the meaning of the phrase. According to your definition, ANYTHING can be spun into a conspiracy theory eh? Doesn't matter if its official / proven / fact / theory or not.

There is no evidence, that's the thing! They melted it all down and shipped it away asap! They started with the official theory and ended with the same theory, but that's because they didn't even look into other possibilities.

AHA! So please explain to me how did all these evidence of "bomb" materials in the WTC collapse were found then. I mean if everything was melted and shipped away there would be no trace right?

Also if you bothered watching the National Geographic video I linked you that covered the EMTRC and Purdue studies you would know they didn't use materials from the WTC as their source of evidence. They build an entire model based exactly of specifications of the WTC and crashed a plane also designed exactly to specifications and monitored what happened.

[s1k3sT]

No...the official story is not a "conspiracy theory" by today's definition. A conspiracy theory is the theory that something else happened...that the official story of x, y and z happened a different way.

For example...official story is that Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed JFK. Conspiracy theory: More than one person was behind the shooting (i.e. grassy knoll...CIA...etc)

Officially we landed on the moon. Conspiracy Theory: We didn't land on the moon. Everything was shot on a stage.

If something deviates from the official story of any event...it can be considered as a Conspiracy Theory. When you have a conspiracy theory...the burden of proof are on those that believe it happened different than the widespread belief/facts of the official story. In the case of 9/11, the official story is that Islamic extremist flew planes into the WTC, Pentagon and, after the passengers intervened, into the ground at Stonycreek Township

I really do not understand why you are trying to define something that is different than common knowledge/sense.

In regards to your last line, you are mistaken. If you believe something different happened on 9/11 than what the government, various researchers/experts and majority of the population claim...than the burden of proof is on you.

So, I guess that answers your original question. No, the official/documented events of 9/11 are not a "conspiracy theory". Anything that deviates away from it can be considered a conspiracy theory.

You need to look up the definition of conspiracy and the definition of theory. I know it's been recently redefined but that's my whole point! The words themselves describe almost the whole population, whereas the new definition describes almost none of the population, in other words it's doublethink!

You claim the majority of people believe your conspriacy theory, but I can't believe that without unbiased evidence.

You obviously still fail to understand the meaning of the phrase. According to your definition, ANYTHING can be spun into a conspiracy theory eh? Doesn't matter if its official / proven / fact / theory or not.

Mostly everything IS a conspiracy theory and that's my whole point! Have you ever theorized that bank robbers conspired to rob a bank? If so, you are a "conspiracy theorist"...

[Mr. Gibs]

Mostly everything IS a conspiracy theory and that's my whole point! Have you ever theorized that bank robbers conspired to rob a bank? If so, you are a "conspiracy theorist"...

Really. I mean really. I knew you were stupid, but I never assumed that you were this retarded.

So it doesn't matter if there was proof that something happened, you're still a conspiracy theorist if you believe it and you're still one if you don't.

Thank god the English language wasn't created by you.

You need to look up the definition of conspiracy and the definition of theory.

Thank you for proving my point; that you're retarded.

[brentaal]

You need to look up the definition of conspiracy and the definition of theory. I know it's been recently redefined but that's my whole point! The words themselves describe almost the whole population, whereas the new definition describes almost none of the population, in other words it's doublethink!

This might come off as a surprise to you, but words change semantic values based on context. Gluing together meanings of the word "conspiracy" and the word "theory" as separate entities doesn't relate in any way to the semantic value of "conspiracy theory", nor does your proposition to adapt its meaning have any sense, at all.

[s1k3sT]

Really. I mean really. I knew you were stupid, but I never assumed that you were this retarded.

So it doesn't matter if there was proof that something happened, you're still a conspiracy theorist if you believe it and you're still one if you don't.

In my example how can you prove they conspired without a recording of the conspiring? In the case of 9/11 isn't it the same? The theory might fit with the evidence, but that might just mean the theory is vague. Even if the theory holds up for a conviction, that still only means the theory was good enough for the judge to believe it.

So, you are the one that doesn't understand English. Just because something is a theory doesn't mean it's wrong.

This might come off as a surprise to you, but words change semantic values based on context. Gluing together meanings of the word "conspiracy" and the word "theory" as separate entities doesn't relate in any way to the semantic value of "conspiracy theory", nor does your proposition to adapt its meaning have any sense, at all.

Conspiracy theory=almost none of the population

Conspiracy+theory=almost all of the population

Therefore the term conspiracy theory=1984 doublethink

Name one other example were the words that make up a term are defined almost exactly opposite the term itself.

[brentaal]

Conspiracy theory=almost none of the population

Conspiracy+theory=almost all of the population

Therefore the term conspiracy theory=1984 doublethink

You = someone who has trouble understanding the most simplest things.

Don't blame others for your own inadequacies.

[s1k3sT]

You = someone who has trouble understanding the most simplest things.

Stop blaming others for your own inadequacies.

I could say the same to you.

[Mr. Gibs]

In my example how can you prove they conspired without a recording of the conspiring? In the case of 9/11 isn't it the same? The theory might fit with the evidence, but that might just mean the theory is vague. Even if the theory holds up for a conviction, that still only means the theory was good enough for the judge to believe it.

So, you are the one that doesn't understand English. Just because something is a theory doesn't mean it's wrong.

Ok let me break this down into baby English for you.

1. A phrase does not need to have the same meaning as the 2+ words that were put together to form it. This is one of the reasons why English is such a complicated language.

2. The reason why the definition was changed is simple. The phrase was initially coined at a time news wasn't as widespread as it is today. If the original meaning still existed today it would cause mass confusion since nobody would know what was official / fact and what wasn't.

3. The people who make these changes aren't thickheaded idiots like you are, for the most part anyways.

4. Unless you can come up with substantial proof that your theory is right, it is common practice to either mark it as wrong or leave as a theory.

In the case of 9/11, the official theory is right since most of the evidence supports it. Alternative theories are considered conspiracy theories because there isn't enough evidence to support their claims. If everything in the world was labelled a Conspiracy Theory nobody would know what to believe, science as we know it wouldn't make sense, and we would probably return to the Dark Ages and descend into chaos (bit of an exaggeration).

[brentaal]

I could say the same to you.

You could but you'd be dead wrong. There's a reason why everyone in here disagrees with you.

[Phenom II]

You could but you'd be dead wrong. There's a reason why everyone in here disagrees with you.

I dont :p

[s1k3sT]

Ok let me break this down into baby English for you.

1. A phrase does not need to have the same meaning as the 2+ words that were put together to form it. This is one of the reasons why English is such a complicated language.

2. The reason why the definition was changed is simple. The phrase was initially coined at a time news wasn't as widespread as it is today. If the original meaning still existed today it would cause mass confusion since nobody would know what was official / fact and what wasn't.

3. The people who make these changes aren't thickheaded idiots like you are, for the most part anyways.

4. Unless you can come up with substantial proof that your theory is right, it is common practice to either mark it as wrong or leave as a theory.

In the case of 9/11, the official theory is right since most of the evidence supports it. Alternative theories are considered conspiracy theories because there isn't enough evidence to support their claims. If everything in the world was labelled a Conspiracy Theory nobody would know what to believe, science as we know it wouldn't make sense, and we would probably return to the Dark Ages and descend into chaos (bit of an exaggeration).

So, you like the idea of being told what to believe?! I know the answer to that so don't bother answering. Don't you understand what you are saying?! "nobody would know what to believe"?! How about looking at the facts and deciding for themselves who's right and who's wrong?! I would rather think for myself than be told what is right and what's wrong.

I dont :p

Thanks for the support. I know there are many other people on here that think like me too, they just don't feel like putting themselves in the crosshairs.

[brentaal]

I would rather think for myself than be told what is right and what's wrong.

We already see that, and it's getting quite annoying because your conclusions tend to be wrong.

[Billus]

Wow, you people make wild claims and accusations that Bush and the US Government decided to blow up some towers and at the same time, think that it was a good idea to chuck some planes into the mixture and blame it on Al Qaeda; yet, you people show no evidence or proof except for a parody script on one off the first few pages. It's no wonder why hardly anyone believes your version of events.

Thanks for the support. I know there are many other people on here that think like me too, they just don't feel like putting themselves in the crosshairs.

Yea, keep thinking like that

I would rather think for myself than be told what is right and what's wrong.

We already see that, and it's getting quite annoying because your conclusions tend to be wrong.

+1

[s1k3sT]

We already see that, and it's getting quite annoying because your conclusions tend to be wrong.

LOL, the irony is amazing. Go on believing what you're told, we know you wouldn't do anything else anyway...

I'll continue thinking critically about all theories and supporting the ones with the most evidence, you can keep believing what you're told. Have fun...

[Mr. Gibs]

So, you like the idea of being told what to believe?! I know the answer to that so don't bother answering. Don't you understand what you are saying?! "nobody would know what to believe"?! How about looking at the facts and deciding for themselves who's right and who's wrong?! I would rather think for myself than be told what is right and what's wrong.

Dear ****ing god, why do you keep wanting to make yourself look stupider and stupider.

Please point out where I said that I like being told what to believe. All I'm simply saying is the majority of evidence supports the official claim. The alternate claims aren't exactly hidden to the outside world are they?

Nobody is telling you what's right and what's wrong. The theory was provided, evidence for it was found, it was made official. If you wan't to disprove something that is official you find evidence that points to an alternate theory and bring it up. The reason why we choose to believe what the Government says in this case is true is because studies, simulations, and experts back it up. More so than the alternate theories.

We aren't being forced to believe it and nor are we being forced to listen to whats right and whats wrong. But until you can bring up substantial proof that what you're saying is right, don't expect people to believe you.

I'll continue thinking critically about all theories and supporting the ones with the most evidence, you can keep believing what you're told. Have fun...

Good job in shooting yourself in the foot, for what has to be the 100th time in this thread, again.

[s1k3sT]

Dear ****ing god, why do you keep wanting to make yourself look stupider and stupider.

Please point out where I said that I like being told what to believe.

If everything in the world was labelled a Conspiracy Theory nobody would know what to believe

Do I need to say anymore?! If you actually do like you said you only believe the official conspiracy theory because we were told it's the right thing to believe. Look at the evidence if you want the truth. Believe everything you're told if you want to be decieved.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

LMAO :laugh:

Debunking....

I just think its funny how everyone is saying "No way the US government could have pulled this off"

Yet 4 random blokes on a plane could !

This is exactly why there are conspiracy theories. People find it very difficult to accept that "4 random blokes on a plane" could do so much damage to a nation. This just doesn't sit well with people who expect there to be more order and control in the world. In fact, the idea that there is order and control, even if that it means malevolent government control, is more appealing to them than the thought that really bad and unpredictable things can just happen. This is the same reason why we hear about governments staging the Iceland eruption/ash cloud. People want the safety and security of knowing that there is a small cabal of powerful people controlling things. This, they can wrap their minds around. It is tangible. We could ever work towards stopping it and making the world a better place. The real problem is that we can't work towards stopping random chaos as that would be pointless. And so, conspiracy theories will live on because it is easier than the ugly truth.