The same as yours, but I don't look at the world through rose-coloured glasses.Good lord, man...
What colour is the sky in that world of yours?
Last edited:
Dick Cheney: Freudian slip
- Thread starter Shakerod
- Start date
This is for Shakerod, and all the other troof believers. I hesitate to call these believers wingnuts, because they then will say that you are only shooting the messenger, not the message.
Again, a little common sense goes a long long way.
Shakerod, aside from the innuendo's, have you stumbled across 1 concrete piece of evidence. 8 years is a long time for all these troofer experts to find something, anything that could support your theories. Really, if you are interested, I can point you in the direction of all the sites with concrete information, that has been proven, explained and accepted by the experts who have done the research. One piece of evidence is not much too ask. Maybe one peer reviewed paper that has been published.
Why is it that the troof movement has stalled so badly. Could it be because their platform has so many holes in it, it stand up to any type of close inspection.?
Shakerod, are you really just Silky/lighthead's third alter ego? Do you actually share your views in public? or only on websites as an annonymos poster? Do you still live at home and have your mommy tuck you in at night?
Now be honest with yourself, how many of these characteristics do you possess.
The following is for you. Enjoy.
Conspiracy theorists
AKA 'conspiraloons', 'tinfoil hatters', 'loonspuds', 'fruit'n'nut jobs' etc.
Updated 29th April 2009.
Note from editor: because of the high profile nature of the urban75 bulletin boards, we often suffer obsessive conspiracy theorists or (guffaw) 'truth seekers' filling up the boards with fact-free claims, evidence-untroubled epilogues and vast reams of tedious cut'n'paste, invariably regurgitated from some dubious internet site.
We hope this information will be of use if you encounter a conspiraloon while on the boards.
10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.
2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.
3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.
4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.
5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.
6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.
7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.
8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.
9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.
10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.
A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.
Wikipedia: conspiracy theory guide
1. Initiated on the basis of limited, partial or circumstantial evidence;
Conceived in reaction to media reports and images, as opposed to, for example, thorough knowledge of the relevant forensic evidence.
2. Addresses an event or process that has broad historical or emotional impact;
Seeks to interpret a phenomenon which has near-universal interest and emotional significance, a story that may thus be of some compelling interest to a wide audience.
3. Reduces morally complex social phenomena to simple, immoral actions;
Impersonal, institutional processes, especially errors and oversights, interpreted as malign, consciously intended and designed by immoral individuals.
4. Personifies complex social phenomena as powerful individual conspirators;
Related to (3) but distinct from it, deduces the existence of powerful individual conspirators from the 'impossibility' that a chain of events lacked direction by a person.
5. Allots superhuman talents or resources to conspirators;
May require conspirators to possess unique discipline, unrepentant resolve, advanced or unknown technology, uncommon psychological insight, historical foresight, unlimited resources, etc.
6. Key steps in argument rely on inductive, not deductive reasoning;
Inductive steps are mistaken to bear as much confidence as deductive ones.
Appeals to 'common sense';
Common sense steps substitute for the more robust, academically respectable methodologies available for investigating sociological and scientific phenomena.
7. Exhibits well-established logical and methodological fallacies;
Formal and informal logical fallacies are readily identifiable among the key steps of the argument.
8. Is produced and circulated by 'outsiders', often anonymous, and generally lacking peer review;
Story originates with a person who lacks any insider contact or knowledge, and enjoys popularity among persons who lack critical (especially technical) knowledge.
9. Is upheld by persons with demonstrably false conceptions of relevant science;
At least some of the story's believers believe it on the basis of a mistaken grasp of elementary scientific facts.
10. Enjoys zero credibility in expert communities;
Academics and professionals tend to ignore the story, treating it as too frivolous to invest their time and risk their personal authority in disproving.
11. Rebuttals provided by experts are ignored or accommodated through elaborate new twists in the narrative;
When experts do respond to the story with critical new evidence, the conspiracy is elaborated (sometimes to a spectacular degree) to discount the new evidence, often incorporating the rebuttal as a part of the conspiracy.'
» Wikipedia
Further reading
9/11 conspiracy theories: The truth is out there...just not on the internet
David Aaronovitch [The Times, April 29, 2009]
Again, a little common sense goes a long long way.
Shakerod, aside from the innuendo's, have you stumbled across 1 concrete piece of evidence. 8 years is a long time for all these troofer experts to find something, anything that could support your theories. Really, if you are interested, I can point you in the direction of all the sites with concrete information, that has been proven, explained and accepted by the experts who have done the research. One piece of evidence is not much too ask. Maybe one peer reviewed paper that has been published.
Why is it that the troof movement has stalled so badly. Could it be because their platform has so many holes in it, it stand up to any type of close inspection.?
Shakerod, are you really just Silky/lighthead's third alter ego? Do you actually share your views in public? or only on websites as an annonymos poster? Do you still live at home and have your mommy tuck you in at night?
Now be honest with yourself, how many of these characteristics do you possess.
The following is for you. Enjoy.
Conspiracy theorists
AKA 'conspiraloons', 'tinfoil hatters', 'loonspuds', 'fruit'n'nut jobs' etc.
Updated 29th April 2009.
Note from editor: because of the high profile nature of the urban75 bulletin boards, we often suffer obsessive conspiracy theorists or (guffaw) 'truth seekers' filling up the boards with fact-free claims, evidence-untroubled epilogues and vast reams of tedious cut'n'paste, invariably regurgitated from some dubious internet site.
We hope this information will be of use if you encounter a conspiraloon while on the boards.
10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.
2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.
3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.
4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.
5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.
6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.
7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.
8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.
9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.
10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.
A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.
Wikipedia: conspiracy theory guide
1. Initiated on the basis of limited, partial or circumstantial evidence;
Conceived in reaction to media reports and images, as opposed to, for example, thorough knowledge of the relevant forensic evidence.
2. Addresses an event or process that has broad historical or emotional impact;
Seeks to interpret a phenomenon which has near-universal interest and emotional significance, a story that may thus be of some compelling interest to a wide audience.
3. Reduces morally complex social phenomena to simple, immoral actions;
Impersonal, institutional processes, especially errors and oversights, interpreted as malign, consciously intended and designed by immoral individuals.
4. Personifies complex social phenomena as powerful individual conspirators;
Related to (3) but distinct from it, deduces the existence of powerful individual conspirators from the 'impossibility' that a chain of events lacked direction by a person.
5. Allots superhuman talents or resources to conspirators;
May require conspirators to possess unique discipline, unrepentant resolve, advanced or unknown technology, uncommon psychological insight, historical foresight, unlimited resources, etc.
6. Key steps in argument rely on inductive, not deductive reasoning;
Inductive steps are mistaken to bear as much confidence as deductive ones.
Appeals to 'common sense';
Common sense steps substitute for the more robust, academically respectable methodologies available for investigating sociological and scientific phenomena.
7. Exhibits well-established logical and methodological fallacies;
Formal and informal logical fallacies are readily identifiable among the key steps of the argument.
8. Is produced and circulated by 'outsiders', often anonymous, and generally lacking peer review;
Story originates with a person who lacks any insider contact or knowledge, and enjoys popularity among persons who lack critical (especially technical) knowledge.
9. Is upheld by persons with demonstrably false conceptions of relevant science;
At least some of the story's believers believe it on the basis of a mistaken grasp of elementary scientific facts.
10. Enjoys zero credibility in expert communities;
Academics and professionals tend to ignore the story, treating it as too frivolous to invest their time and risk their personal authority in disproving.
11. Rebuttals provided by experts are ignored or accommodated through elaborate new twists in the narrative;
When experts do respond to the story with critical new evidence, the conspiracy is elaborated (sometimes to a spectacular degree) to discount the new evidence, often incorporating the rebuttal as a part of the conspiracy.'
» Wikipedia
Further reading
9/11 conspiracy theories: The truth is out there...just not on the internet
David Aaronovitch [The Times, April 29, 2009]
As a matter of fact, I do write a lot of articles on that and other subjects, of which I use my real name. If you would like to meet me some where, I would be happy to discuss the subject with you. Just pick the time, and place that would be convenient for both of us, and we can sit down and have a beer, and discuss it like adults. Look forward to hearing from you!
Sounds like a plan. I think it would be interesting.
The one thing I do ask before the meeting, is for you to post just 1 piece of evidence. Not conjecture, not theory, just 1 solid piece of evidence. I wish you luck, because after 8 years, no one has found anything. What they have found are little blurbs here and there such as the Cheney stuff.
Regardless, though, I am still interested. I remember having a discussion with a person a few years ago downtown when the troofer were having a rally. All he did was repeat verbatim the nonsense that Richard Gage, David Ray Griffen, and the Loose Change boys had printed. I really don't think he knew what he was talking about.
Anyway, I am interested.
I am not gonna bother getting into this whole debate about 911. But I will say this, as somebody who has been traveling with "tools" for work for 15 years, a box cutter, or a knife of ANY sort for that matter, has not been allowed on an airplane since the days of "smoking seats". Well before the 1990's. And if you think about it in hindsite, if any of you were on a plane that got taken over by terrorists with knives and not guns, do you really think you would have sat back and watched it happen? Nobody would. That's where I scratch my head.
I have a long list: Professor Steven Jones; has all kinds of evidence pointing towards controlled demolition, Sibel Edmonds; former FBI translater and whistleblower has had a gag order put on her since 2001 for some of the things she knows about 9-11, William Rodriguez; had worked at the World Trade Center for about 20 years, as the person in charge of maintenance of 3 stairwells, he heard all kinds of explosions while he was saving at least 8 lives that day. He also spent hours testifying behind closed doors in front of the 9-11 Commission, yet his testimony as an eyewitness and last person to leave the North Tower alive was not relevant enough to put into the 9-11 Commission report. I could go on about numerous firefighters that witnessed first hand explosions going off in the buildings basement, which of course doesn't make sense when the planes hit 70 or more floors above. Of course none of this matters unless there is an investigation, but that is just the tip of the iceberg of information I could tell you about, because for everything you said you researched, I have just as much, if not more that I could bring forward.
Last edited:
I'm not sure what everyone expects to happen ? The USA did not loose a war & the leaders are not being held to account by the enemy ...as often happens at times when wars end. Just ask Saddam. lol. And furthermore the war against terrorism continues.
The USA is going through a tough time because of the course it has chartered. It's morale and status in the world has dropped. The last thing they're going to do is further question and denigrate their institutions for all the world to see. Even Obama recognizes that this would be catastrophic to their society. It's time to rebuild, retool, and lift their spirits. They will be willing to reflect & examine what happened when Bush and Cheney are dead and gone.
hahaha, excuse to start wars. Well the excuse didnt go over very well then did it ? You were not convinced.
Do you think the coalition forces were wearing chemical warfare gas masks when they stormed Bagdad because they liked the style ?
If Saddam was innocent then why did'nt he let the weapons inspectors do their job ?
Iraq is a functioning democracy now but the media doesn't report that. Did you even know that the war is basically over ?
Ok. I guess the US does create fake enemies to start fake wars so they can wear gas masks because they like the style.
Just not true. I used to carry my smallish Swiss army knife all the time until they tightened up the rules in 2001.
You might think the US " created " the Iraq war but I beg to differ.
United Nations Security Council resolution 1441 on November 8, 2002, was offered to Iraq under Saddam Hussein "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284). [1]
On November 8, 2002, the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous 15-0 vote; Russia, China, France, and Arab countries such as Syria voted in favor, giving Resolution 1441 wider support than even the 1990 Gulf War resolution.
Then why did the US at the beginning of this war begin a unilateral invasion of Iraq rather than a coalition of international forces? Because while the UN and the countries involved weren't totally convinced that an invasion was the solution, the UN was still interested in using a diplomatic path rather than using force....unfortunately Bush wasn't interested and invaded Iraq without the backing of the UN....hence why France,Germany, Canada and other countries decided not to join in unlike when Iraq invaded Kuwait.
The US invasion of Iraq was a money grab and an opportunity for the Bushes to finish old business for the Saudis....
lets just agree to disagree. i personally believe that the US(bush/cheney) wouldn't attack there own country. if for no other reason then the fact i don't think they have the intelligence to plan it
a money grab now......... The cost of the Iraq war is $670,000,000,000
I am not saying the US had UN approval, I am just saying the US had UN approval.
Yes, a money grab. Who owns Haliburton? Who has a stake in oil prices. Never mind what the war cost taxpayers, but who benefited from the war.
I don't understand the last sentence of your post...what are you trying to say?
