Who thinks this Post should be on the Conspiracy Thread..and Why?

There is no other discussion, as in its legal terms, and defenitions. anything that is "Limited", cannot be "Free", so to limit one from yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre is ...."Technically, and legally "Limited Freedom of Speech"

It's a conspiricy theory. Doing your job.

It is a man reporting what he experience first hand. He was there. Not a conspiracy theory. It is news.

But it's the content of what he is reporting that composes the conspiracy theory.

It is YOU calling it a conspiracy theory. He is telling facts that happened to him. Can you not see the difference?

Also blaming the Islamic for terrorism, and really don't have proof
is slandering. The reason why its slandering is because you are
going by hear say, and you don't have physical proof. Most of
you is jumping the gun without proof, or because your lying ass
Government said so you believe it.

Regardless to whom the blame is pointing to until there's
proof that don't mean anything.

It is becoming increasingly clear that you are the thickest person on this entire forum.

A conspiracy theory, according to Merriam Webster (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conspiracy theory) is "a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators".

Saying that 9/11 was an inside job and that the official story is "a farce" (as the person in your video asserts) fits this definition. You, Roker, Marilyn, your 9/11 'Truth' video are all putting forth a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances and that is that the government was behind, in one way or another, the 9/11 attacks.

Continuing with the definition, "as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators" -- a secret plot by the powerful groups, be it PNAC, Pentagon, Bush Administration, Military Industrial Complex...whatever you nutjobs feel like calling on any given day.

So do you now understand why any discussion on 9/11 conspiracy theories belongs in the conspiracy theory section?

Keep in mind, just because it's a conspiracy theory doesn't mean it is automatically wrong. There have been conspiracies over time that have been proven as true. That doesn't change the fact that it's still a conspiracy theory.

Frankly, I'm amazed that we're still even talking about this. Grow up. Find something worth while to talk about.

It's not slander when they confess to doing it.

There is so much physical proof that it really is stunning people even doubt that Muslim terrorists were behind it. A little anecdotal evidence that you won't find in your 9/11 "Truth" videos -- one of my friends from high school who was in the first team of Special Forces to enter Afghanistan told me about the first AQ training camp he saw. There were life-size planes, cock pits, simulators, the works. But he said the thing that convinced him were the hundreds of box-cutters everywhere.

I should be shocked that you don't think 9/11 is important. Do you have any idea of how many people in the US and the world think the government was very heavily involved with 9/11? or Oklahoma City?

FYI
Yes 5 No 9

If you continue to insist on calling Truth Seekers nutjobs just because they don't agree with your way of thinking, I can only conclude that you are running scared.

Just for the sake of my curiosity...which board was it on? Since you mentioned an illness I'd assume it was in Health, but you know what they say about assuming things.

I never said that 9/11 wasn't important. I siad that getting into a 3 day argument over what forum it belongs in isn't important.

So? What does this prove? None of these people have been able to refute the flawless logic.

They are nutjobs. I mean, it's one thing to say that the government bureaucracies failed miserably to prevent this attack and they should be criticized very heavily for this, but to honestly think that the government had anything to do with it defies all logic.

I'm not really interested in starting the my scientist vs. your scientist stuff, but anyone who steps back and assesses this objectively can clearly discern that there is no grand conspiracy involving the Bush Administration.

Here's a question: How is a president willing (and able) to bring down the World Trade Center, murdering nearly 3,000 Americans without inspiring a single whistle-blower or attracting a solitary eyewitness, somehow morally or logistically incapable of planting some exculpatory WMDs in Iraq?

Do you really think the Bush Administration is competent enough to pull this off and secretive enough to have it not leak?

Truth Seekers?????

http://www.911truthseekers.org/

http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=3595&pst=812781

the entire first part of the tape the man almost exclusively talks about the health concerns and issues he had relating to ground zero.....he also tells us of many who passed away due to the mystery illness


the main thrust of the interview WAS NOT 9-11 conspiracy related. you know it but wont relent because you somehow feel your validated

note how you continue to bring up the defenition of "conspiracy theory" from merriam webster?


Also note how you COMPLETLY AVOIDED my direct responses to your ludicrous definitions....
there can be NO "CONSPIRACY THEORY" as the BURDEN of conspiracy has not been met

BTW i use merriam websters definition of conspiracy....... its all listed several posts ahead of this

you were UNABLE to counter my points instead, you ignored them and waited and tried your tack again.......

your really not as hot as id thought .......your rather ineffective actually


the more i actually watch and read what you post the more apparent it becomes.............

there is NO CONSPIRACY in this mans SINGULAR accounts of that day the BURDEN of conspiracy per merriam websters hasnt been met there fore your "conspiracy theory" defenitions as i stated much earlier in the thread are NULL and VOID

apparently you missed where i dismantled your theory

How so Typical of you. As time goes on i begin to see this place more and more for what it is.First of all let me start with adressing the first comments youve made here.

I have not once commented on the contents of the video in the sense you are projecting upon myself ...you also are projecting this upon KOF as well....she clearly came here not supporting or "posting" the video as you so Erroneously eluded to earlier

she came here to ask WHY this video was placed in the conspircay section...neither her, or myself, were calling the video proof, truth, evidence, or anything else?

Myself i hadn't even discussed ANY of the specifics of the video? I was here discussing whether a mans re-canting, of 9-11 is automatically called "conspiracy".

I have never once colluded with any of the posters in this thread, to purport the video as a truth, and theory? I haven't stated what, any of what was said was even relevant? what i stated is ,the burden of "Conspiracy" per Merriam Websters dictionary, has not been met...

therefore what this man has said in the video, CANNOT be "Conspiracy Theory" he hasnt met the defintion of Conspiracy?...... The only other thing i stated was that i felt most of what the man was stating were his personal experiences and his opinions as a Police Officer at ground zero

you continue to project that the defnition of the "TERM" conspiracy Theory" is what is at stake.......that's incorrect, as the definition of "Conspiracy has never been met ....without the conspiracy its only a "Theory"

NO where in what i have sai have i purported this video to be ANYTHING least of which i have not colluded with anyone to try and Project that theory upon anyone

your misdirection is apparent and willfull many readers will not catch the Nuances in which you operate some will......
I wasnt "Putting forth" ANYTHING?

you sir on the other hand are putting Forth Non truths and misdirections....by implying that somehow i was? the only thing that i have steted is the obvious this was not conspiracy theory

this was a mans opinions and experiences being shared

Period ........

the burden of conspiracy has never been met

your crackpot idea that somehow this is a "Conspircay Theory " has been made NULL by the fact there was no collusion on the individuals part merly a re-canting of his experiences concerning the subject matter


funny you complain of how 3 days have been discussing this yet you continue to muddy the pool with your theory and projection? why is that? like a crak pipe you cant seem to put it down.....i wonder why?

Roker, the title of the video is "9/11 Truth: WTC First Responder on Says 9/11 was an Inside Job"

Are you really going to tell me that this video is not "9/11 conspiracy related"?

Is that a problem?

I'll get to it in a second.

What does this mean? Burden? The video and its accompanying theory fit the definition (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conspiracy theory) word for word.

Which is what Roker? If you have such a big problem with "this place" then leave.

My deepest and sincerest apologies to all of those I offended. I admit that I was wrong and will never be able to live this down. Marilyn originally posted the video, not KOF.

And I explained why it was placed in the conspiracy section: because it's a conspiracy.

Okay.

I don't think that a definition can describe an event any more precisely.

So this is your thesis? Saying 9/11 was an inside job (as the title of the video proclaims) is only a "theory" but it cannot be called a "conspiracy theory" because there was no conspiracy?

Per Merriam Webster, a conspiracy is when people "join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement". Consider the fact that for 9/11 to be an inside job (as the title of the video proclaims), it would require the help of demolition experts, the security firms guarding the World Trade Centre, Mayor Giuliani (who hastily disposed of the remains), much of the US air force, the Federal Aviation Administration and the North American Aerospace Defence Command, the relatives of the people "killed" in the plane crashes, the rest of the Pentagon's staff, the Los Alamos laboratories, the FBI, the CIA, and the investigators who picked through the rubble, I would say that this would meet the definition.

Okay.

Yes it has.

No collusion of individuals? He's saying that 9/11 was an inside job. I just outlined above how many individuals it would've included if his theory was correct.

Why do I keep coming back? Simple, to defend my actions.