posted
The latest updated version of the 9/11 conspiracy theory documentary Loose Change is out now. Watch it here: Loose Change. Final CutPosts: 1396
| IP: Logged
posted
Buy the way there seems to be an arms race between 9/11 conspiracy theorists and debunkers with conspiracy theorists continually putting forward new facts which point towards it being a conspiracy only for those facts to be explained away by debunkers a few months later.
In one book called "Debunking 9/11 debunking" the conspiracy theorists turn the tables on the debunkers and try to debunk their so called rational exlanations of certain facts.
quote:Originally posted by Harlequin: Buy the way there seems to be an arms race between 9/11 conspiracy theorists and debunkers with conspiracy theorists continually putting forward new facts which point towards it being a conspiracy only for those facts to be explained away by debunkers a few months later.
In one book called "Debunking 9/11 debunking" the conspiracy theorists turn the tables on the debunkers and try to debunk their so called rational exlanations of certain facts.
Most of these conspiracy materials end up debunking their own theories anyway - disintegreating into a mass of contradictions. Loose Change first focussing on supposed government plans drawn up decades ago to fake a terrorist attack using passenger jets. Fine. So this supports the theory that the US used remote piloted jets to bring down the WTC and build momentum for an invasion blah blah blah. Then the documentary focusses on the idea that the WTC was brought down with a controlled explosion and that there were no passenger jets. Which renders all the initial evidence moot, because if you accept the second half then bringing down the WTC with passenger jets was never the plan, so evidence suggesting such a plot is completely irrelevant. If you accept the first half of the theory then that contradicts... and so on.
And if it's a controlled explosion why even bother bringing planes into it at all? Would people really be that resistant to the idea that a terrorist group would just... you know... bomb a building?
Posts: 13758
| IP: Logged
posted
That anti Rachel North blog is madness. He spends so much energy ripping into someone's simile that they were 'trapped like sardines', debating "how could you be trapped like sardines, there must have been loads of room down their", as though the whole event can't have happened just because someone used a similie that wasn't precisely accurate. Imagine that! Someone staggering out of an explosion, expressing themselves with the first cliche that comes to their confused, frightened mind and it turns out to be inaccurate. That must prove them wrong. What next? A guy in a car crash claims "It all happened in slow motion" refuted with "No - it happened at 60 mph, which is very fast. Not slow motion at all! Obviously you weren't there!" Serial killer uncovered, neighbour states "He seemed like a quiet, normal kinf of guy" refuted with "How can he have been quiet or normal when he was a serial killer? Obviously you didn't live next to him at all!"
Posts: 13758
| IP: Logged
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic