14 votes

Asking Questions is not the same as "Conspiracy Theorizing"!

For the life of me, I don't understand people who attack those of us who have questions about the massacre in CT. Just because we have questions does not mean we are developing "conspiracy theories." If we had more info, then conspiracy theorizing might be appropriate. This reflexive disdain for questions really makes no sense.

However, many of us have jumped too quickly to develop notions about who or what groups were really behind this massacre, as we saw in the now somewhat debunked Libor scandal theory.

To those who automatically trust the official story, why can't you distinguish between questioning of sudden shifts in media coverage, or changing info from media and outright conspiracy theorizing? I am with you in feeling frustration toward those who jumped to conclusions soon after the news broke about this massacre, but aren't you even a little curious about why the media, for example, no longer discusses the second suspect? Multiple witnesses saw that there was at least one other suspect than the purported killer, so where is your curiosity? Does your fear of being labeled a "conspiracy theorist" not get in the way of your curiosity? I see the same pattern with 9/11 Truth.

Another person asks, What about the second suspect? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdBbxX1DE4c

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I suppose it

Is all in the manner in which the question is asked?

Are you angry, tired, sarcastic, judgmental, fearful? These emotions invade conversations, meaning they influence the verbiage we choose to converse with when we are feeling them. This is human nature, we all do it, and we all are normaly blissfully, or callously unaware or blasé about doing so.

Such topics as this, and others such as 911 have been purposefully manipulated by the Elite ( see articles on Internet trolls ) into becoming known " conspiracys ". Whether this is by a disinformational campaign, or to create a " taboo " scenario depends upon information which we, the targets can only guess upon.

But here is my " conspiratorial " question, sorry Michael, no disrespect but it is 911 related.

First the facts.

Thomas A. Ridge, the first head of the fledgling DHS was Governor of Pennsylvania prior to that eventful day. Mr. Ridge, did something HIGHLY UNUSUAL, three months prior to 911, he resigned the Governorship early. There was no scandal, no reason why, his term wasn't completed, and by all accounts his leadership had been very successful. Yet three months prior to 911, he resigns out of the blue, offering the following publicized reason : " I'm resigning my office to be with my family and to return to the private sector ".

No, his family wasn't ill, or in marital troubles.

Mr. Ridge did NOT return to his brand new, never lived in million dollar home in Millcreek Pennsylvania after resigning either. He packed up and moved to.......Virginia.

My question is simply this " why ? "

One thing I know for sure, I can trust my government to lie, obfuscate and intimidate: track records being what they are.

God bless

Drew, by the very grace of GOD through the blood of Christ Jesus.
"there shall come after us men whom shall garner great wealth using our system, and having done so shall seek to slam the door of prosperity behind them." George Washington

I applaud the poster for

I applaud the poster for writing about this subject. What he said needed to be said. It was due. No. It was past due.

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton F. Dutton

jrd3820's picture

I learned this weekend

not to ask questions here at all. It really pisses people off. Do not question the authority of the people on this forum, they do not like it!

It's not the people asking questions

It's the idiots giving unsubstantiated answers.

It's the people manipulating clips in order to push a "conspiracy theory." It's the people making proclamations with no evidence whatsoever.

The problem is the disinformation sensationalists. NOT the question-askers.

D, c'mon, quit the loaded

D, c'mon, quit the loaded writing, "...the idiots giving unsubstantiated answers."

Why not say, the people giving unsubstantiated answers OR, better, unsubstantiated answers?

The former recommendation allows for explaining what those people do then applying a term on them (even if it's derogatory which I advise against) at the end of your explanation. Excluding degradation, writing that way is clear, fair writing because it doesn't push, or force, its reader to believe one way or the other immediately and afterward. It allows the reader to conclude what he will on his time. When someone thinks people C are stupid, describing them so only bolsters that person's argument provided he doesn't omit information proving his claim about them is wrong because the author is in charge of his case, meaning he can write about the information countering his claim.

Loaded writing is ubiquitous and I'm confident you know it and that you write that style occasionally. When I read this style, irrespective of its author I withdraw some of my respect for him, more so if he has enough wherewithal to know he wrote (or writes) that way.

D, I recognize you write coherently, and you did here. But overall, consider using a lot fewer descriptive words AND assertions than you do. One too many descriptive words or assertions turns credible writing into loaded writing, a noncredible writing. Yes, the difference between those styles is thin. One too many of either usage renders compositions impotent, wastes of time and is basis to pass on what that author says later. At least it does to the attentive reader, leaving the author the inattentive reader.

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton F. Dutton

fireant, is that you?


No. But I like Fireant.

It's not easy being the only person (patiently) defending an unpopular position with a hostile group of conspiracy theorists. I don't know shit about structural engineering, so I excuse myself from commenting in those forums, but I vote up Fireant because I think he makes many valid points, whether he is wrong or right.

It's about science. We are all on the same page with ethics in this community.

ask an iron worker.

if you want or need to know about "structural engineering"
HVAC equipment is very heavy and it vibrates and other things.
I know what I am talking about.
fireant does not...sorta like you....

fireant's picture

How many of the iron workers who dismantled the piles have you

spoke with. How many have AE spoke with before claiming controlled demolition? Huh??? And when are you going to answer how that perimeter wall got plugged into Verizon?

Undo what Wilson did

I already answered that! momentum and inertia!

the challenge is not for me, it is for you.

911 is a topic I blew off years ago. many people will go down to the death, defending something.

so, how do you get something to embed itself, sideways, in a gravity induced collapse?
answer, you don't.
I am very pleased to announce, something that you have not figured out yet.

fireant's picture

More avoid, and the fatal flaw of your argument.

The best you can come up with is "it can't happen". That is the same logic used by AE911Truth. You avoid the actual evidence at all cost and hide behind it can't happen based on nothing but your "superior interpretations", all the while deflecting from the truth, which is that it can and did happen. You may fool some here, but a grand jury ain't gonna buy it, not after seeing the overwhelming evidence of what actually did happen; something you have demonstrated yourself incapable of explaining.

Undo what Wilson did

Whoa. read that back to yourself.

click your heels three times and..