Logical Fallacy

Posted July 15th, 2008 by Cameron_DeHart

I think it is pretty obvious that this site, and most others, has become a hangout for conspiracy theorists, moreso than a Ron Paul support group. As such, I find it necessary to tackle the nuisance of these conspiracy theorists. Now, it is near impossible to attack specific theories, because I am not an expert on the vast number of the fields that they all encompass, and there is no possible way for me to convince a believer that their ideas are wrong.

Instead, I would like to attack the heart of most conspiracy theories: the logical fallacies of their believers. I believe that the world of a conspiracy theorist (9/11, Moon Landing, Federal Reserve, Global Warming Swindle, Creation, etc) is one warped with dementia and plagued by a sense of ridicule (given that their ideas and lifestyles are rejected by the main stream.) I hope to provide a few examples here, to show some of you that may be on the fence on some of these theories, that these people are dangerous and know very well how to mess with the psychological wellbeing of their prey.

First off: I was recently told by a 9/11 truther that 80+% of Americans question the official story of September 11th. This, my friends, is an example of the bandwagon effect, also known as Argumentum ad populum. The aforementioned fallacy states that the more people believe in something, the truer it becomes. This is simply not the case. Didn't a famous philosopher once say that history is a set of lies agreed upon? If a great number of people do not believe the entire story of 9/11, that does not necessarily change what happened on that day.

Those numbers (the 80+%) may also be severely skewed. If someone asked you "How do you feel about red construction paper?" and you replied "Well, I don't know. Its okay, I guess." Then that researcher could release a statement saying that 80% of all people prefer red construction paper. Simply untrue.

Secondly, conspiracy theorists are infamous for either not citing their sources, or citing fraudulent or out-of-context sources. I cant tell you how many times I have asked a conspiracy theorist for proof of a theory, and they redirect me to an Alex Jones site. That isnt proof. While I am smart enough to do cross-references, the average American isnt. So by providing a list of sources, the reader will assume they are credible, because MOST people do not check cited sources. One fallacy often used is, "several scientists around the world do not agree with the theory of global warming"...The reader is not going to ask "Who are these scientists?" because the average person assumes that white lab coat automatically qualifies a person.

Another fallacy employed by theorists is the shotgun argumentation, also known as proof by exhaustion, proof by verbosity, and argument from repitition. This is the presentation of SO many pieces of evidence, that the investigator (or person looking at this evidence) can only sit back and say "WOW! Thats alot of evidence, theory X MUST be true." The Shotgun part comes in when comparing this method to hunting. If you are hunting rabbits with a rifle, that bullet is extremely powerful and will kill with one hit, but it is very hard to actually land the target. If you use a shotgun, the pellets are weaker, but due to the volume of the blast, your chances of hitting the target are greater.

If a theorist provides 100 pieces of evidence, 98 of those can be disproven if examined closely enough. But those 2 other pieces are a little harder to disprove. If they cannot be disproven, that does not necessarily validate the point, because there may be other explanations. But, to the weary researcher, those one or two questionable pieces of evidence, speckled throughout a sea of convincing, though false, claims are enough to convince them of a theory. This is widely used in Loose Change, in which they take scores of claims, often misquoted or uncited, and blast them at the viewer. There are so many claims, that they cannot possibly fact-check all of them, and at first glance, they appear true.

The Straw Man argument is also instilled by theorists. Instead of explaining this, I will provide a good example. I watched the Democracy Now with Amy Goodman debate between the creators of Loose Change and the writers of Popular Mechanics.

-The Popular Mechanics guys said something to the effect of "Some calls [to loved ones] were made by cell phone, some by the airphones in the plane, but a majority of them were dropped."
-Loose Change replied "Company X is putting amplifiers in their planes in order to increase the signal of the phones during flight. Why would they do that, if you just said that calls were, in fact, able to be made to loved ones on 9/11?"
-Pop. Mechanics says "We didnt say all of the calls were made: a FEW calls were able to go through (for whatever reason, lurching factors) but the majority were dropped, as a result of poor signals." The Loose Change guys rolled their eyes and went on to the next argument.

See what they tried to do there?

I know most here wont receive appreciate me for this thread, but I really dont care. Comments please.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

output

cameron

On July 16th, 2008 JohnGalt300 says:

Fortune Favors the Bold

Not all people who may agree with limited government have the same fundamental ontological method. Accept this, and it will save you much frustration.

Also, what's wrong with a sign saying "The Federal Reserve is a scam." Unlike the other things you discussed, this is not a matter of objective fact, but subjective interpretation.

This guy was completely

On July 16th, 2008 djskiefer says:

This guy was completely pwned by LibBerte. See below.

wait...

On July 16th, 2008 billsebe says:

your calling creationists conspiracy theorists? hahahaha

and the people that tote global warming are conspiracy theorists, not those fighting the ignorance of it.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
http://will86aber.wordpre...

One of the biggest problem

On July 16th, 2008 richiep says:

One of the biggest problem that I have with conspiracy theorists, is they do more harm then good to the cause they protest.

I'll take for example something that most people do not associate with a conspiracy to show what I mean. Lets say... gee I don't know, how about the barbershop in the Capitol building. As I recall, that's subsidized and congresscritters get a haircut for $2 bucks or something like that. Let say we want to end that subsidy. Now the CT folks start saying the only reason that this program exist, is to hide the fact that 50% of congress is loosing their hair and are bald. While they find some evidents that in a tangent way could be a problem, such as 100 year old water pipes in that building, they then build that into the theory. "The real reason they are loosing their hair was a plot by FRD to makes the water pipes leak on the senior Republican's desks, so he could adopt his socialist agenda!" might be one thing they say.

Think about it hard enough and you can always construct a CT about anything or anyone. What most of these theories do is say the solution they want (the government did it) and then look for the evidence that supports it.

That's why I think there are so many of these theories out there, and as I said, they do more harm as they distract you from the real issue, and haircuts go on being subsidized.

I'm really sorry

On July 16th, 2008 RonPaulistheAnswer says:

but you pretty much made me sick in the first four lines.

There is a patern with the fed, you decide...

On July 16th, 2008 Fight4Freedom2008 says:

Bankruptcy and Conrail merger

The American financial system was seriously shocked when after only two years of operations, Penn Central declared bankruptcy on June 21, 1970. It was the largest corporate bankruptcy in American history up until that time. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w... ]

Penn Central was the nation's largest railroad with 96,000 employees and a payroll of $20 million a week. In 1970, it also became the nations biggest bankruptcy. It was deeply in debt to just about every bank that was willing to lend it money, and that list included Chase Manhattan [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w... ], Morgan Guaranty [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w... ], Manufacturers Hanover [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w... ], First National City [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w... ], Chemical Bank [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w... ] and Continental Illinois [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w... ].
Officers of the largest of those banks had been appointed to Penn Central's board of directors as a condition for obtaining funds, and they gradually had acquired control over the railroad's management. The banks also held large blocks of Penn Central stock in their trust departments. The arrangement was convenient in many ways, not the least of which was that the bankers sitting on the board of directors were privy to information, long before the public received it, which would affect the market price of Penn Central's stock. Chris Welles, in the "The Last Days of the Club"[ http://www.amazon.com/Pas... ], describes what happened: On May 21, a month before the railroad went under, "David Bevan", Penn Central's chief financial officer, privately informed representatives of the company's banking creditors that its financial condition was so weak it would have to postpone an attemptto raise$100 million in desperately needed operating funds through a bond issue. Instead, said Bevan, the railroad would seek some kind of government loan guarantee. In other words, unless the railroad could manage a federal bailout, it would have to close down. The following day, [Chase Manhattan's] trust department sold "134,300" shares of its Penn Central holdings. Before May 28, when the public was informed of the postponement of the bond issue, Chase sold another "128,000" shares. David Rockefeller [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w... ], the banks chairman, vigorously denied Chase had acted on the basis of inside information.
More to the point of this study is the fact that virtually all of the major management decisions which led to Penn Central's demise were made by or with the concurrence of its board of directors, which is to say, by the banks that provided the loans. In other words, the bankers were not in trouble because of Penn Central's poor management, they [were] Penn Central's poor management. An investigation conducted in 1972 by Congressman Wright Patman [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w... ], Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee, revealed the following: The banks provided large loans for disastrous expansion and diversification projects. They loaned additional millions to the railroads so it could pay dividends to its stockholders. This created the false appearance of prosperity and artificially inflated the market price of its stock long enough to dump it on the unsuspecting public. Thus, the banker-managers were able to engineer a three-way bonanza for themselves. They received dividends on essentially worthless stock, earned interest on the loans which provided the money to pay those dividends, and were able to unload 1.8 million shares of stock--after the dividends, of course--at unrealistically high prices. Reports from the Securities and Exchange Commission showed that the company's top executives had disposed of their stock in this fashion at a personal savings of more then $1 million.
Had the railroad been allowed to go into bankruptcy at that point and been forced to sell off its assets, the bankers still would have been protected. In any liquidation, debtors are paid off first, stockholders last; so the manipulators had dumped most of their stock while prices were relatively high. That is a common practice among corporate raiders who use borrowed funds to seize control of a company, bleed off its assets to other enterprises which they also control, and then toss the debt-ridden, dying carcass upon the remaining stockholders or, in this case, the taxpayers... [ http://www.amazon.com/Cre... ] p.41-43

What you believe to be true, is true to you... "until you change your mind"

Money, Banking and the Federal Reserve

On July 16th, 2008 Fight4Freedom2008 says:

http://www.youtube.com/wa...

I with you Cameron!

On July 15th, 2008 Treg says:

See my thread here:

http://www.dailypaul.com/...

and here

http://www.dailypaul.com/...

In Peace & Liberty,
Treg

So you think the Fedeal

On July 15th, 2008 hawkiye says:

So you think the Fedeal reserve is legit? Sigh! The Federal reserve debacle is well documented. I suggest you read G Edward Griffins book and pick out a few part you think are bunk and try to refute them

Thank you for reinforcing the media mantra that anyone that questions suspicious activity of the government or other, points out obvious inconsistencies and outright criminal behavior and cover up tactics must by out to lunch....Big sigh!

You don't even realize you are repeating the mantra yourself drilled into by the media it's not even an original thought. Just because something is not proven does not mean it false. it only means it not proven. Most of ancient history is unproven and had very little evidence by manuscript.

Ever heard of the Tonkin Gulf incident? or the Lusitania? the government has been caught before in conspiracies so it is logical they could do it again and there is evidence to suggest they have. perhaps not outright proof but good evidence. To dismiss it out of hand for lack of total proof is the logical fallacy.

Me thinks your a troll perhaps a banned member under a new name

-----
Prepare For the Coming Storms, Join New FreelandersSelf Reliance & Preparedness Forums

The Tonkin Gulf incident was

On July 15th, 2008 Cameron_DeHart says:

The Tonkin Gulf incident was an outright lie, and was documented. Not that hard to lie about something on the other side of the world and have the American public believe it. Beside, there was a precedent for the fake attack, because there was already a conflict there.

And the Lusitania is incomparable to 9/11.

And now, I have never been on this site under a different name. Nice try though. I will give it to you, you and your friends act very much like Republicans. Give a false name to your enemy, slander their character with clever names and accusations, until they are too stupified to even respond, because you have won the mob over to your side. Barack Obama is Muslim, Swift Boat veterans against John Kerry, John McCain has a black baby, and Cameron_dehart is a troll. Bravo.

I am not trying to tell

On July 15th, 2008 Cameron_DeHart says:

I am not trying to tell anyone that they CANT believe in something. I just want to let people know that I believe, like MANY others in this campaign, that the extravagant theories that float around the Ron Paul support camps played at least a minor part in his failure to break through to the mainstream. None of the other candidates, except maybe Huckabee with creationism, had such a large group of supporters that held 'far-out ideas' (not my words, btw).

Personally, my own meetup went through this debate. Some people were going to Ron Paul sign waves with other signs. I personally carried things like 'End the War', 'Protect Gun Rights', etc etc. These are things that at least half of the population can understand, and support. Others, however, had things like "The Federal Reserve is a scam", 'the income tax is illegal', '9/11 was an inside job.' Its okay with me if you believe that stuff (Take a line from Voltaire 'I dont agree with what you are saying, but I would defend to the death your right to say it.') but these causes are all very unpopular/unheard of with, dare I say, 98% of the American population. If you put these things that (I personally view as understandable, though certainly debateable) appear 'wacko' next to a Ron Paul sign, his name and campaign become associated with those causes.

Can you at least UNDERSTAND where I am coming from? Can you at least understand my frustration?

And I want to apologize: i wrote this thread very quickly, and didnt have a chance to re-read it before going to work. I shouldnt have generalized all theorists like I did. I'm sorry.

I agree that these ideas aren't "main stream"....

On July 16th, 2008 wpsmithjr says:

but isn't that the problem?

Isn't the problem we have in this country that the lemmings are fed the pablum from the corporate media, and they accept these sound bites as being the important issues of the day?

Meanwhile, our currency is being ruined by the Fed, the government is doing nothing to secure our borders, we're being overtaxed and overregulated by bureaucrats, and the government has used 9/11 as an excuse to take away our rights and liberties and to promote unconstitutional war and empire-building.

All the things I mentioned above are the biggest issues facing America today, but most of them are only brushed upon by the main stream media.

Sure, we may like RP's stance on the "normal" issues like the war and gun control... but other people had those stances too. Kucinich, Gravel, they want to end the war as well, but they don't even talk about some of these other very important issues.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe these "kooky" ideas (like the fact that the Federal Reserve is a scam) aren't "main stream" for a reason? Like maybe the people who are taking advantage of these issues don't want the American people to know about them?

How else will they learn if RP people don't try to wake people up?

I know I myself know a hell of a lot more about the Fed, our Constitution, the war, 9/11, and a host of other very important topics because of the RP supporters that bring these ideas to the forefront of discussion.

Why couldn't other people learn some of the same stuff?

I know I didn't start paying attention to RP's campaign because I was worried about the Fed and their "funny money", but... after I started following him I realized that he was touching on an issue that no one else was talking about... and it was a HUGE issue. (That's why he talks about it so much.)

EXACTLY!

On July 16th, 2008 opengee says:

Right on! That is exactly right! I am with you 100%, there! These so-called conspiracy theories, are not even theories. They are highly-probable possibilities and NEED to be addressed! You realize that if these theories are correct, which in my opinion they are almost all absolutely correct, it would make most, if not all, the political and economic (as well as the judicial) 'monarchs' accountable and they would stand trial for crimes against the People of America! You take away their crimes, that are hidden behind making those that demand justice and truth as being "kooks", and this country HAS NO PROBLEMS! We would have no economic strife and aggresive foreign policy and loss of life and the rest of the world hating us collectively! It boils down to WHAT IS RIGHT AND WRONG, period! I don't believe that demanding a transparent government and admission of guilt by the government itself is a conspiracy theory! The people must be willing to realize and accept that their care-taking and precious "US Government" has ANYTHING BUT their best interests in mind!

Ditto

On July 15th, 2008 LibBerte says:

OK Cameron, I won’t rub your nose in the point that you revert to the fallacy Argumentum Ad Populum well identified in your last post when you suggest we should defer to the consensus in regards to the views which most merit our advocacy abandoning “ these causes [that]are all very unpopular/unheard of with, dare I say, 98% of the American population.” And I can’t agree with you that, on balance, extreme views held by Ron Paul’s supporters cost him measurably in his chances for mainstream acceptance…. Or that your related argument from association should carry much weight. Are you suggesting people dialed into the mainstream are more likely to snap out of their shallow complacency and pay attention if Ron Paul’s views and supporters conformed more to the usual model ?

Sound bite thinking has little to do with sound thinking. Whether someone is a conventional or unconventional dittohead, it does little good to hit people over the head with the tube through which they get their tunnel vision. Now I’m all in favor of diplomacy and salesmanship, but it sounds to me like you are talking about substantive changes to the product itself. I would suggest this type of thinking misses the point. An easy trip to power down the path of least resistance is not what Ron Paul and his discerning supporters are after.

Certainly, Ron Paul's views do not fit comfortably within the mainstream. But that doesn’t mean we should back away from them. Ron Paul has done much to demonstrate that many prevailing norms are in need of severe reexamination. Whatever else is true about him, Ron Paul advocates his policies in a rational, substantive, and coherent way. You are right that we, his supporters, should do no less. Indeed there are a lot of views that Ron Paul’s supporters espouse that thoughtful people don't share, or don't yet share. Let's do the work to first hear controversial views on a topic fully articulated, then try to understand and engage the facts and reasons behind arguments.

Can we agree it would behoove those who respect their own intelligence to not be content with snickers, name calling, fallacies and flip categorizing dismissal as a substitute for reasoned debate ?

Argumentum ad Ignoratiam

On July 15th, 2008 LibBerte says:

Thank You For Your Very Lucid Display Of Fallacious Thinking.

Your HASTY GENERALIZATIONS make it easy, (or should I say simple ) to SLIDE DOWN THE SLIPPERY SLOPE to your syllogistic conclusion that all unconventional thoughts that may be labeled conspiracy theory needs to be rejected out of hand as beyond the pale. Of course you must have meant it to be a perfect illustration of a THOUGHT TERMINATING CLICHÉ : “ these people are dangerous and know very well how to mess with the psychological wellbeing of their prey ”, you explain. No, actually you don’t explain. This would not be an example of classic projection, by which you attempt to resolve problems of your own cognitive dissonance, would it ? If not, such JUDGMENTAL LANGUAGE gives clue that you intend this BARE ASSERTION, perhaps, to depict the operation of the PSYCHOLOGISTS FALLACY. Or is it just to offer an example of the ASSOCIATION FALLACY by which you set up a NON SEQUITUR criticizing all of us who choose to share ideas here as “this site, and most others, has become a hangout for conspiracy theorists”.

I understand such APPEALS TO FEAR and SPITE are most conveniently proffered when one purposefully CHERRY PICKS a few STRAW MEN to SPOTLIGHT. It couldn’t be they were only intended to serve as a RED HERRING across the trail for those here who quest for truth. Nah… perish the thought. All interconnections must be coincidental. Motives must never be suspect when simplemindedness provides a more expedient explanation. Sure… a man starts a thread on logic to illustrate confused thinking.

Your critique attempts to dismiss those who seek truth and who are not uncomfortable discussing theories open to consideration of the idea that persons may, at times, act in concert. Right, there is something sinister about theorizing that designing men may conspire to contrive events. This should be considered a priori self evident, in my opinion; but, we can agree to disagree, can’t we.

I, for one, do not find your views objectionable as AD HOMINEM solely because you resort to labels which you associate with ridicule. No, I submit your indictment fails because it shares the same inherently flawed reasoning which typifies most bunk and de-bunk peddled as logic which is really just sophistic snickering. Your flourish of ad ignoratiam rhetorical obfuscation BEGS THE QUESTION – 'who has the burden of proof ?'

We should all practice critical thinking.... Don't ya think ?

pure ownage

On July 16th, 2008 Kemp says:

pure

_________________________________

My liberty-minded home base of thought:

www.ponderthis.net

Owned

On July 15th, 2008 MrWood says:

Hit the nail on the head. Cameron, I understand where you are coming from, but don't be so hasty to lump everyone who believes in such vague conspiracies as "the federal reserve" into one generic category. Some of us, as you were just shown by Lib, are actually capable of applying logic to these issues and don't deserve to be labeled as irrational lunatics.

Remember what FDR said:

On July 15th, 2008 Bob-45 says:

"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way".- Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Yes. Terrorists in the

On July 15th, 2008 Cameron_DeHart says:

Yes. Terrorists in the Middle East, angry at the United States for its involvement in, oppression, and exploitation of the region and its support of Israel, planned terrorist attack. The conspiracy theory of blowback, supported by Ron Paul, Stephen Kinzer, Chalmers Johnson, many ex-CIA officials, teachers, myself, and countless other respectable men and women, makes so much more sense. It is still not accepted by the mainstream (one thing it has in common with other theories) but it is at least proveable, and is rooted deeply in history, politics, and fact.

Right...

On July 16th, 2008 wpsmithjr says:

But these are the very same terrorists that were created, funded and armed by our CIA. And they are the same terrorists that have been involved in many business dealings with our President and his father, the former president, since the 1980's.

So even if we know for sure it was a bunch of guys from a cave in Afghanistan... there are still way to many connections and coincidences to say that for sure now one in the administration knew what was going to happen.

I agree and I don't...

On July 15th, 2008 wpsmithjr says:

I agree that the CT's use straw man arguments, shotgun methods, etc.

I agree that many of their claims can be debunked or easily refuted.

I agree that Loose Change, made by a bunch of teenagers... is crap.

I also agree that 2 pieces of real evidence out of 100 doesn't make a good case. The other 98 pieces of evidence make the presenter of the evidence look like a fool... which is a big problem that CT's have... they don't investigate both sides thoroughly enough to figure out what is fact and what is embellishment.

However...

Just because the 98 pieces of evidence don't hold up doesn't mean we should ignore the other 2 that do.

Governments have always lied to and oppressed their people. Most wars are fought for money... not because of "bad guys". Most governments throughout history have used propaganda to rally their people to support wars. Most wars throughout history have been financed by the same group of financially elite bankers.

You mention that a lot of times you ask for "proof" and some CT will give you a link to an Alex Jones site. And I agree, Alex exaggerates for effect and things aren't probably as bad as he says they are... but...

There is plenty of evidence from main stream sources that back up his claims. In fact, most of the stuff he talks about on his show is the result of an article published in a main stream news publication... he's just adding his own spin to it.

Take 9/11 for example. I can refute or at least put forth a plausible argument refuting most of the Truther's claims... for example, Larry Silverstein was not talking about demolishing the building when he said "pull it". He was talking about pulling the firefighter teams from the building. I've seen the entire interview, with that line in context. Most CT's haven't. They just keep spreading that little bit of mis-info.

But...

Why did Larry Silverstein buy these buildings? They were not in good shape and needed a major overhaul... to the point that they had been thinking about demolishing them for a while but the asbestos inside prevented them from doing so. (Asbestos is one of the many reasons the buildings were a bad investment.) The gov failed to mention this asbestos when the crews were cleaning up the site, you'll notice.

Also, if you want proof of government involvement... or at the very least complete government incompetence on 9/11, you don't have to go to conspiracy websites... you can get it through main stream media sources only.

This website uses ONLY main stream news articles to make it's point for government complicity on 9/11. No conspiracy theory websites... only ABC, NBC, Fox, Wall Street Journal, CNN and the like. It has a short 10-page timeline of events, a longer 25-page timeline, and a complete in-depth 60-page timeline. In my opinion (I'm not claiming to have "proof", you'll notice) this site makes a strong case that the government did have plenty of evidence the attacks were coming, and they did nothing to protect us that day or in the days leading up to the tragedy.

http://www.wanttoknow.inf...

So, whether they planned it or just let it happen... to me that doesn't matter... the fact is that we give them billions of dollars of our tax dollars every year for national defense, and they failed us. No one was fired. No one went to jail. Instead, many people got promotions and increased budgets for their departments.

So, if you believe the "official story", which I don't know if I do or not... then you also have to believe that $60 billion spent on defense is not enough to stop 16 cave-dwellers from Afghanistan from beating every one of our defenses that day and during the months leading up to 9/11.

Either way, shouldn't some heads have rolled?

But they didn't.

Even the "investigations" were whitewashed. The NIST report even debunks the pancake collapse theory put out by the 9/11 Commission Report and the Popular Science article. And none of them have an explanation for Building 7.

So, while I agree with you on many points, I'm still not going to sit back and bash the Truthers for their concern and investigation. I just think they need to look at both sides of every one of their arguments before spouting them out to the general public.

I have always believed that

On July 15th, 2008 Cameron_DeHart says:

I have always believed that the government knew 'something.' There are threats every day. We should have been on our guard. I dont think that Bush knew exactly when it was going to happen, but alot could have been done to prevent it. Incompetence is to blame, entirely. His neoconservative friends hijacked his policymaking, disseminated lies, and forced into an unending war on an idea. I am totally on board with the charges of civil liberty abuse, misuse of funds and troops in Afghanistan, nation building, lying about Iraq, creating tensions with NK, Iran, and Europe, ignorance of BLOWBACK (a Ron Paul bulletpoint)....and all the other stuff that Bush can be charged with in the 'Worst President Ever' contest.

But there is SO much evidence to back all of those things up. Amnesty International, Red Cross, ACLU, BBC, Al-Jazeera....all of these groups and many more have filed reports documenting torture, spying, misuse of funds, extraordinary rendition, giving money and weapons to heroin-lords in the North of Afghanistan, destablizing the governments in Venezuela and Iran, the 1000s lies used to sell the Iraq War, etc etc etc. There are countless intelligence leaks that have spelled bad news for the administration. Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, etc etc. THE EVIDENCE NEEDED TO PUT BUSH AND HIS CRONIES IN JAIL A MILLENIUM IS PILED UP AT OUR DOORSTEPS!!

But there is almost no evidence to support the 9/11 inside job theory. Only speculation. One of the most shocking things to me is that if the government couldnt keep quiet about torture, secret prisons, wiretapping, rendition, secret spy's names, oil pipeline plans, spies in Iran, mysterious disapperances of weapons caches, secret emails expressing urge to kill SH right after 9/11, and countless other things....then how in the world have they managed to keep completely quiet about, based on one theory I've heard, the explosives planted in the towers, the planes being shot-down (remote-controlled/crashed/being fake/etc), direct orders to stand down BECAUSE they knew what was happening, or a missile being shot into the Pentagon? An operation this large would have taken months, if not years, to choreograph and carry out...and there have been no letters, emails, phone recordings, that would indicate an inside job?

Our government fucks up everything it touchs....they, for whatever reason, took note that they destroyed tapes with interrogations on them, and even that leaked. I dont question the incompetence or evilness of this administration, but logistically, I dont see an inside job possible.

All the techniques you've mentioned

On July 15th, 2008 Ruth says:

have been used by the Popular Mechanics writers, especially the Straw Man one. There's really only one real reason I'm suspicious of the official story: George W. Bush was allowed to sit in a classroom reading a story about a Pet Goat for seven minutes. His appearance was well publicized, anyone could've known that's where he'd be, and the Booker T. elementary school was only four miles from an airport, but somehow Bush's secret service must've known he was in no danger because they made no effort to whisk him off to safety, which of course is their job. Please don't pull out the incompetence card. If they were that incompetent, someone would've been fired over it. Pretty suspicious, don't you think?

It's pretty damn basic

On July 16th, 2008 Kemp says:

_________________________________

My liberty-minded home base of thought:

www.ponderthis.net

I agree. I too have

On July 15th, 2008 djskiefer says:

I agree. I too have encountered many of these logical fallacies when dealing with conspiracy theorists. 9/11 comes to mind. For example:

Bandwagon effect- "75% of Americans believe that Al-Qaeda terrorists with boxcutters hijacked commercial airliners and flew them into buildings".

Citing untrustworthy sources, such as the 911 Commission Report and Bill O'Reilly.

Shotgun Argumentation: "But what about the terrorist Visa found at Ground Zero? But what about the wreakage clearly visible in Shanksville? But what about the 5 frames of the Boeing you can see in the Pentagon tapes"....etc. etc. etc....

Get a life, troll. We're not as stupid as you would like to think.
911 was an inside job.

Yawn

On July 15th, 2008 healthnut4freedom says:

Whatever. I don't know enough about 9-11 to know whether it was an inside job or not. I do know it was the result of incredibly sloppy handling of intelligence. It could have been avoided, for sure, if people chose to pay attention.

And, regarding everything else that you are putting down - well, yawn. Who cares? I don't care if you don't believe in creation or the global warming swindle. What I care about is your freedom to not believe in those things and my freedom to. So, that is why I am here and working as a PC in my precinct and was a delegate to the state convention. That is why I am sending Ron Paul's book to as my national delegates as I can and why I won't stop.

That is why I check in here and share information and encouragement and celebrate when there is something to celebrate. Everything else is just static and background noise and something to ignore. Why can't you ignore it?

Healthnut4freedom

"Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct thy paths." Proverbs 3:5,6

Congratulations!

On July 15th, 2008 BigT says:

This thread premise was an excellent example of the Straw Man argument.
And you knocked down that straw man with real gusto!

You're awesome!

That Straw Man

On July 16th, 2008 Kemp says:

is sure down for the count!

_________________________________

My liberty-minded home base of thought:

www.ponderthis.net

Federal Reserve is not a conspiracy theory

On July 15th, 2008 dcarter9 says:

It is easy to analyze the structure and the way it works. It is also easy to analyze the fractional reserve banking system and the way it works. They are both scams and built upon fraud that serves to funnel the wealth of the nation into the hands of the bankers. If you don't believe it, that's fine with me. I know that there are a lot of misrepresentations regarding both of these systems and it clouds the ability of any serious investigation into the workings, but there is also much reputable and well documented research into banking practices and a lot of investigative journalism that was done by competent and reputable reporters over the past 100 years.

Yup, it's a vast conspiracy all right...

On July 15th, 2008 Tannim says:

just to drive you crazy.

Ignore the static.

Here's my Daily Paul

On July 15th, 2008 Kevin Tuma says:

Here's my Daily Paul Anti-Truther impersonation:

"I think you people are an embarrassment to this site, and you make us look bad. Outsiders come read these posts and assume we're all nuts.

THEREFORE, I must post my opinion of what a bunch of doody-heads you are, and how your theories are wrong--and keep it bumped. Everyone in cyberspace needs to read this.

By the way, in case I didn't mention it, you people and your theories are
an embarrassment to this site, and you make us look bad."

SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States