Sicarius, when you go on for several paragraphs about 9/11 being an inside job, you'll forgive us if we assume you're advocating for that interpretation.

I personally think you're just trying to backpedal a bit in a vain attempt to not be seen as a nut. Brother, that ship sailed for you a long time ago.

Hanlon's Razor:
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

i.e. - just as with "Remember the Maine" or Pearl Harbor or the Hindenburg - as tempting as a conspiracy theory is (and sometimes they are true, admittedly), it is not wise to jump to such a conclusion when simple and, yes, widespread stupidity will suffice (in the case of 9/11 it is a lame security situation - which persists, by the way - coupled with a uniquely (at the time) vulnerable design of the towers - coupled with a former mindset that said "just cooperate with hijackers" (that mindset already corrected in Flight 93 - when the passengers heard of the other crashes). You want a conspiracy out of 9/11? That one is blindingly obvious - the painting of Iraq as the culprit. But the attack itself? Give me a break.

33 comments later and no one has actually addressed Sic's initial claims about the holes in the accepted view of 911. Invictus, Klein, Tettle and even Obi all didn't respond to Sic's claims.

Obi, you bring up Occam's razor, well which is simpler to you, the laws of physics were voided, or the government carried out an intricate plan to mask a larger agenda? One of those has happened before in history, one of those is impossible according to all that we know about science.

"33 comments later and no one has actually addressed Sic's initial claims about the holes in the accepted view of 911. "

good. This is not a disscussion about 9-11. that was used as an example only. This threads interest does not lie in the truth behind 9-11. It is relevant to this only in that it was widely accepted, mostly without question, with little to no evidence (not even enough to charge bin laden).


fuck it. do what you want with the thread.

Responding might give the impression his claims have merit.

9-11 was an inside job. Everybody knows you can't melt steel with fire....Rosie O'Donnell told me so.

One thing that it is good to bear in mind is that conspiracies do in fact occur. Thus the two words ''conspiracy theory'' must not be used to stifle debate. Price of diamonds? Assassination of Abe Lincoln? etc...etc...

Of course conspiracies occur, but those are not conspiracy theories. And the "I'm just pointing to holes in the official story" line is another standard conspiracy theorist canard. How many times have you heard someone say "I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies trying to get you to think for yourself!" when really what they mean by "think for yourself" means the same thing as "agree with me"? You can claim it's just innocent question asking all you want, but really it's just another tactic to persuade people to agree with you. This is what really frustrates me about debates like this. You act as though you're the only person who's really thinking independently, and claim you're simply trying to get everyone else to "think critically", without actually knowing what that really means or how to do it. It's smug, it's patronizing, it's disingenuous and it's insulting to my intelligence. The reason I'm not responding to your actual points is because I'm trying to get you to see the larger pattern in your behaviour and maybe then you'll cut it out. Because seriously, it's not doing you any favours.

Mafia, was that addressed to me?

Just the first sentence. All the rest was for Sicarius.

Sorry, should have made that clear.

Well before the theories are proven, they must be hypothesis, or theories, if you prefer. Would you like to stifle this debate?

Mafia - what a lot of people don't understand is that if the government is going to be the bringer of truth and tell us what happened (aka the official story), they have the burden of proof.

If that burden doesn't hold water, it's logical to dismiss it. Period, end of story. What is NOT logical is to call others who don't believe it a kook or a nut.

And yes, the word "conspiracy theorist" is synonomous with kook and nut and an obvious attempt to stifle debate.

A theory is not a hypothesis. But that's irrelevant to this discussion.
More to the point, a "conspiracy theory" contrary to what it's name might suggest, is not just a theory about a conspiracy. Conspiracy theory culture follows a more specific pattern, than just thinking something about conspiracies. When people refer to a conspiracy theory, they're talking about a specific kind of thought pattern that begins with a mistrust of government, and official explanations, and is tinged with a kind of paranoia, a belief in the power of overarching organizations to cover up evidence in pursuit of a larger, sinister agenda and something of a persecution complex.
For instance, say for instance I suspect that the Roswell incident was actually a crash involving, at the time, advanced military hardware, and in order to prevent the nature of the military hardware in question becoming widely known, the government allowed and secretly encouraged the rumours about extra terrestrials, because they knew most people would ignore it if it sounded crazy, and the few people who did care would be thrown off the actual trail if they did try to investigate further. Obviously that is a theory, and it is about a conspiracy, but it's not a "conspiracy theory" in the sense that people mean it, because it isn't terribly paranoid and I'm not suggesting a preternatural ability to cover up nefarious plots, just a clever bit of standard counter-intelligence work. It's missing the necessary elements of paranoia and a persecution complex.

Mafia, I would be more comfortable if you used the term ''irrational conspiracy theory'', would you object?

Darwyn makes a good point about government, particularly when you analyse the post-government employment of politicians and enior civil servants.

"Mafia - what a lot of people don't understand is that if the government is going to be the bringer of truth and tell us what happened (aka the official story), they have the burden of proof.

If that burden doesn't hold water, it's logical to dismiss it. Period, end of story. What is NOT logical is to call others who don't believe it a kook or a nut."
- I agree, but the thing is that I'm not convinced by the so called holes in any of the official explanations that most popular conspiracy theories I'm aware of rest on. For my money the official explanation DOES hold water, for all the conspiracy theories I'm aware of. I'm satisfied that the burden of proof HAS BEEN MET. And I don't call people kooks or nuts just because they disagree with me, I call them kooks or nuts when they become increasingly paranoid, and insulting when confronted with evidence that contradicts their viewpoints, and refuse to accept evidence that doesn't support their points, as you, Darwyn, and Sicarius frequently do. Believing something doesn't make you crazy. But clinging to that belief in the face of contradictory evidence and crying "persecution and brainwashing" every time someone disagrees with you, does.

"Mafia, I would be more comfortable if you used the term ''irrational conspiracy theory'', would you object?" - Fair enough. That is perhaps a more accurate term.

Actually the burden of proof rests on those making the more fantastic claims.

Using 9/11 conspiracy people as an example: On the news, we saw planes hit the Towers. The towers then collapsed. At this point, it seems to follow fairly well that A led to B.

However, you have an alternative theory, that requires a massive conspiracy to pull off. Its a bit more of a fantastic story, and if you want me to buy it, you bear the burden of proof.

I'm not saying some pretty strange things haven't happened in the world, but to give us some fantastical cock and bull story about a massive government conspiracy to blow up the Towers *the very same day* they are hit by airliners... you're going to have to do a lot better than some vague paranoid rants.

And again, I don't believe for a goddamn second Sicarius's disingenuous claim that this is about "making people think, not about 9/11 conspiracies". Sicarius has proven he's a nut repeatedly. This might be a case of cry wolf, but he's the one who's got the pattern of lunatic thinking. I think he's just backpedaling because he really hates being called a nutbag.

Yes, I think you're right Jack, sort of. Immediately after the towers fell, and the US government had to deal with the crisis, the burden of proof rested with the government to explain how it had happened. Once they did that, I agree, the burden of proof shifted to the people claiming that their story was a lie, so yeah, for the purposes of this argument I agree with Jack, not Darwyn.

Also, when I label your argument a conspiracy theory, I'm not just saying "oh you're a nut and no one should listen to you" and thus stifle the debate, I'm trying to get you to see the pattern into which you have fallen, because really, that is the only way to debate someone on the side of a conspiracy theory. I mean no offense but both of you, Sicarius and Darwyn have shown yourselves to be over and over and over again to be immune to actual evidence unless it supports your beliefs. We can't actually debate your points, because no matter what scientific analysis anyone comes up with, no matter what knowledge or proof we marshal against you, you simply will not change your mind even a tiny bit. And then we just get frustrated, and give up, and you declare victory. And then you start again, and we say "Look, you're following the typical pattern of a conspiracy theorist and you're not going to listen to anything I say!" you claim that we're trying to stifle debate! So our only hope is to get you realize what you're doing. I'm not trying to stifle debate, I'm trying to debate you, while at the same time, not wasting my time by entering into a debate with someone who will ignore all the evidence. And the only way to do that is to try to get you to see your own cognitive biases.

"Sicarius and Darwyn have shown yourselves to be over and over and over again to be immune to actual evidence unless it supports your beliefs. We can't actually debate your points, because no matter what scientific analysis anyone comes up with, no matter what knowledge or proof we marshal against you, you simply will not change your mind even a tiny bit. And then we just get frustrated, and give up, and you declare victory"

for instance.....?

Mafia and Jack, the flight of influential Saudis, including members of the Bin Laden family, from the US immediately after the attack and during the no-fly order is a matter of record.
No satisfactory explanation has been given. In such a vacuum, speculation (or conspiracy theories) will only thrive I am afraid.

Fulhamish...that's a new one. I don't recall hearing that before. I'll look for independent confirmation, but in the meantime, what about their safety in North America following the attacks? Perhaps it was feared that they would be attacked given the strong anti-arab sentiment that arose in the days following 9/11. International relations were already strained and an attack on an influential Saudi would probably only have worsened them.

we're at war with three (wait no five) islamic countries, I dont think the US is all that concerned about anti-muslim sentiment.

Mafia there is evidence aplenty. I can give you references if you like. But in the meantime why do you think that these particular Arabs were evacuated? One can only speculate in the vacuum left by the lack of official comment.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flights.asp - Yeah, as I suspected. The main reason why most people feel that influential Saudi's and members of the Bin Laden family being whisked out of the country is evidence for a conspiracy theory is because it never actually happened.

Yeah, the flight in question didn't leave until the 20th. Almost a week AFTER air traffic was allowed to resume.

Watch no one believe this now, and go on insisting that they were flown out on 9/12 and then citing world daily news as a source or whatever.

Mafia, did you actually read your reference? At one point most of the passangers were interviewed at the next they wern't! I believe the senator from New York was rather strong on this and Richard Clark took a bullet for George Bush

I hadn't read it before I posted it. So point taken. But here's the thing I've done a bit more poking around. Every source I've found saying the flight was before air traffic was allowed to continue simply asserts it, all the ones I've found that claim it was after the 14th cite sources.

And you've moved the goalposts on me. Were you hoping I wouldn't notice? Your initial claim was that unless someone can explain why the Bin Laden's were flown out of the US during the no fly order, conspiracy theories would abound. I said "The reason no one has explained that, is because it didn't happen during the no fly-order, and the explanation is their safety" and suddenly the question is "Were they interviewed before they left? Unless someone can explain the inconsistency in the information about that then conspiracy theories will abound!"

Also, I did provide a plausible explanation for why they were flown out, and you all just ignored it, and claimed that the US government hates all Arabs. Ugh. See what I mean about disingenuous arguing tactics?