General Discussion

[emw80]

---

Gawge wrote:

---

emw80 wrote:

There we go again with that ridiculous label, "Conspiracy Theorist", has is not sunk in yet that where there is evidence to the contrary, then the theory part is simply no longer applicable.

I'm guessing your remark about the "passionately written books", was a dig at the ones i had mentioned, go do a quick look up and see just who that man is before slating his books off.

Again, nothing too add at all except to get your little remarks and labels in with some link to a cartoon.

This is why threads get locked, and you know the thread will get locked the more garbage replies like this fill it.

---

I believe that I have seen you label many as "sheeple" before. And, although South Park is a 'cartoon', it makes some really good points.

That being said, I agree that some Neo-Cons probably loved the opportunity that 9/11 gave them, and they certainly used it to their advantage. There's no doubt that many terrorist attacks have been used to rally support, create a sense of fear etc... in order to achieve various goals and push through policies (e.g. the patriot act). 

However, that does not therefore mean that those who benefitted caused or 'encouraged' the attacks. Apart from pretty much every respected expert in the relevent fields disagreeing with the conspiracy theories (and that is what they are), governments and individuals just cannot keep secrets, especially not ones so emotive and of such magnitude.

---

Yeah i agree South Park does hit on some really good subjects.

I don't deny that I have used that label "sheeple" many times before, I have used that label at times where people refuse to look at something an instead attack me or someone else in one way or another for even bringing such things up, or in cases where people have refused to even accept that certian historical events even took place while also refusing to look into it. I feel at those times it was justified to say it.

As for the conspiracy theorist label, I dont think it is justified with anything in the OP, these things DID happen, some aspects of all events remain a mystery and that is where we (or me) try to fill in the blank parts and that would be when you can use that label and justifiably so, but that label has mostly been used to blanket everything said wheather parts are valid or not, and that's what i dont agree with more than anything else.

I didn't want to mention 9/11 or 7/7 at all, but then i wondered that someone might ask why they wern't included LOL I just wanted to spur on some discussion about historical events as much as recent events, i feel these things need talking about.

As for my views on 9/11, I take Newtons Laws of Motion and try apply that to what we were told in the reports, and of course too what we see happening, and it doesn't apply. The collapses in all three cases simply do not fall according to the path of least resistence.

I'll also add the trading done in the hours before the attacks took place, in particualr on the airline used in the attacks, this is clear evidence of foreknowledge. A German company which was used to recover data from HDD's from the trade centers were the ones who reported it.

The the other thing i cannot ignore were all of the reports of bombs going off by the EMS, firemen, police, and news reporters and office workers.

I'll leave it there i guess as i don't want this to turn into a war LOL.

[InfiniteStates]

---

emw80 wrote:

As for the conspiracy theorist label, I dont think it is justified with anything in the OP, these things DID happen, some aspects of all events remain a mystery and that is where we (or me) try to fill in the blank parts and that would be when you can use that label and justifiably so, but that label has mostly been used to blanket everything said wheather parts are valid or not, and that's what i dont agree with more than anything else.

---

No one is denying that the events in the OP happened. The problem is you are citing real events along with conjecture of motivation.

Unless you have a signed confession or audio logs of people discussing exactly why they did something then you cannot proof motive, which you are attempting to state as fact. And even confessions or audio logs can be faked.

Without proof, something is theory, whether it is of a conspiracy or not. Similarly, circumstantial evidence is not proof of motive. So any supposition of conspiracy based on motive is more than likely destined to be nothing but theoretical, and by definition conspiracy theory.

[emw80]

---

InfiniteStates wrote:

Without proof, something is theory, whether it is of a conspiracy or not. Similarly, circumstantial evidence is not proof of motive. So any supposition of conspiracy based on motive is more than likely destined to be nothing but theoretical, and by definition conspiracy theory.

---

You know it is not as black and white as that, and really its dependant on the situation and circumstantial evidence available. But then again here you are saying that without "proof" something is theory, yet you leave out mention of evidence.

EDIT: So if there is no evidence OR proof then it is theory, but i think you'll find there IS evidence in each of those events mentioned to sugggest foul play by government or whoever.

Now all i have to do is try to find a smiley face that coveys to you and others and I mean no harm or no disrespect etc in this comment.

[fenian]

---

emw80 wrote:

Well, freedom of speech was set in stone for particular reasons, so that we may openly discus the controversial no matter how horrific and express ourselves without persecution, but perhaps we should simply bury and never speak of these atrocities and crimes ever again in fear we might hurt the feelings of someone.seeing as that is the goal of those who wish to keep secrets and the truth buried from eyes of the people.

---

I should know this, but sorry. Are you american?

I only ask because Europeans dont have freedom of speech. I'm not allowed say racist stuff, and legally not allowed say disrespectful stuff about someone elses religion.

The Irish constitution says you're free to believe whatever you want, and I am not to persecute you over it. So we have a law in place that means if I do persecute someone or blasphemy their belief someone can make me stop and leave them alone. I think thats a good thing, even if Stephen Fry thinks its backward.

But yeah, legally there is a whole heap of things I dont and cant say.

[emw80]

everyone has the riht to freedom of opinion and expression this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek recieve and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of fronters

EDIT: I forgot too add that is for the EU as well as it is the Universal declaration of human rights.

Freedom of expression is freedom of speech.

[InfiniteStates]

---

emw80 wrote:

---

InfiniteStates wrote:

Without proof, something is theory, whether it is of a conspiracy or not. Similarly, circumstantial evidence is not proof of motive. So any supposition of conspiracy based on motive is more than likely destined to be nothing but theoretical, and by definition conspiracy theory.

---

You know it is not as black and white as that, and really its dependant on the situation and circumstantial evidence available. But then again here you are saying that without "proof" something is theory, yet you leave out mention of evidence.

---

I don't need to mention evidence. Evidence and proof are synonyms.

Definition of proof

noun

1 [mass noun] evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/proof?q=proof

[emw80]

Evidence is something that suggests something might be true.

Proof is something that removes all doubt.

[InfiniteStates]

---

emw80 wrote:

Evidence is something that suggests something might be true.

Proof is something that removes all doubt.

---

Circumstantial evidence suggests something might be true.