info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
"The Normalization of Conspiracy Culture"
128 views
Skip to first unread message
stevemg...@yahoo.com
Jun 19, 2017, 8:19:35 AM6/19/17
to
Something for all sides - Democrats, Republicans, liberals, lone nutters,
conspiracists, Trumpists, and anti-Trumpists - to consider.
One of the key grafs: "Conspiracy theories are easy ways to tell difficult
stories. They provide a storyline that makes a harsh or random world seem
ordered. “Especially if it’s ordered against you,”
he says. “Since, then, none of it is your fault, which is even
more comforting.” “That said, more extreme conspiracy
theories are becoming more mainstream, which is obviously
dangerous,” Fink adds. “Conspiracy theories act in a
similar way as religious stories: they give you an explanation and
structure for why things are the way they are. We are in a Great Awakening
of conspiracy theories, and like any massive religious movement, the same
power it has to move people also is easily turned into a power to move
people against other people.”
Rest here: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/06/the-normalization-of-conspiracy-culture/530688/
conspiracists, Trumpists, and anti-Trumpists - to consider.
One of the key grafs: "Conspiracy theories are easy ways to tell difficult
stories. They provide a storyline that makes a harsh or random world seem
ordered. “Especially if it’s ordered against you,”
he says. “Since, then, none of it is your fault, which is even
more comforting.” “That said, more extreme conspiracy
theories are becoming more mainstream, which is obviously
dangerous,” Fink adds. “Conspiracy theories act in a
similar way as religious stories: they give you an explanation and
structure for why things are the way they are. We are in a Great Awakening
of conspiracy theories, and like any massive religious movement, the same
power it has to move people also is easily turned into a power to move
people against other people.”
Rest here: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/06/the-normalization-of-conspiracy-culture/530688/
Robert Harris
Jun 19, 2017, 1:42:34 PM6/19/17
to
It gets tiresome having to deal with this crap so often.
People are charged with conspiracy and convicted of it on a daily basis.
Hundreds of conspiracies by terrorists are well known and undisputed.
Watergate, Iran Contra, and other govt. conspiracies have been proven to
be real.
Trying to demean an adversary by calling him a "conspiracy theorist" is
nothing more than childish name-calling.
It's the lazy and dishonest way of dismissing an argument without
addressing the evidence.
THE EVIDENCE IS ALL THAT MATTERS.
*ALWAYS* no exceptions.
Robert Harris
stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Something for all sides - Democrats, Republicans, liberals, lone nutters,
> conspiracists, Trumpists, and anti-Trumpists - to consider.
>
> One of the key grafs: "Conspiracy theories are easy ways to tell difficult
> stories. They provide a storyline that makes a harsh or random world seem
> ordered. ???Especially if it???s ordered against you,???
> he says. ???Since, then, none of it is your fault, which is even
> more comforting.??? ???That said, more extreme conspiracy
>
> Rest here: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/06/the-normalization-of-conspiracy-culture/530688/
>
People are charged with conspiracy and convicted of it on a daily basis.
Hundreds of conspiracies by terrorists are well known and undisputed.
Watergate, Iran Contra, and other govt. conspiracies have been proven to
be real.
Trying to demean an adversary by calling him a "conspiracy theorist" is
nothing more than childish name-calling.
It's the lazy and dishonest way of dismissing an argument without
addressing the evidence.
THE EVIDENCE IS ALL THAT MATTERS.
*ALWAYS* no exceptions.
Robert Harris
stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Something for all sides - Democrats, Republicans, liberals, lone nutters,
> conspiracists, Trumpists, and anti-Trumpists - to consider.
>
> One of the key grafs: "Conspiracy theories are easy ways to tell difficult
> stories. They provide a storyline that makes a harsh or random world seem
> he says. ???Since, then, none of it is your fault, which is even
> more comforting.??? ???That said, more extreme conspiracy
> theories are becoming more mainstream, which is obviously
> dangerous,??? Fink adds. ???Conspiracy theories act in a
> similar way as religious stories: they give you an explanation and
> structure for why things are the way they are. We are in a Great Awakening
> of conspiracy theories, and like any massive religious movement, the same
> power it has to move people also is easily turned into a power to move
> people against other people.???
> structure for why things are the way they are. We are in a Great Awakening
> of conspiracy theories, and like any massive religious movement, the same
> power it has to move people also is easily turned into a power to move
>
> Rest here: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/06/the-normalization-of-conspiracy-culture/530688/
>
John McAdams
Jun 19, 2017, 1:50:25 PM6/19/17
to
On 19 Jun 2017 13:42:33 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>It gets tiresome having to deal with this crap so often.
>
>People are charged with conspiracy and convicted of it on a daily basis.
>Hundreds of conspiracies by terrorists are well known and undisputed.
>Watergate, Iran Contra, and other govt. conspiracies have been proven to
>be real.
>
>Trying to demean an adversary by calling him a "conspiracy theorist" is
>nothing more than childish name-calling.
>
>It's the lazy and dishonest way of dismissing an argument without
>addressing the evidence.
>
>THE EVIDENCE IS ALL THAT MATTERS.
>
>*ALWAYS* no exceptions.
>
>
You are right to a degree. But there is another dimension.
Do people think their partisan adversaries are merely mistaken, or
that they are evil?
The latter is much more poisonous to the political system.
Believing that one's adversaries are scheming and conspiring to
overthrow the Republic is much more toxic than believing they are
simply wrong and misguided.
Thus it was one thing for a liberal Democrat to disagree with George
Bush's policies. It was entirely another for a 9/11 "Truther" to
believe that Bush (or Cheney) orchestrated the 9/11 attacks.
>
>
>stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Something for all sides - Democrats, Republicans, liberals, lone nutters,
>> conspiracists, Trumpists, and anti-Trumpists - to consider.
>>
>> One of the key grafs: "Conspiracy theories are easy ways to tell difficult
>> stories. They provide a storyline that makes a harsh or random world seem
>> ordered. ???Especially if it???s ordered against you,???
>> he says. ???Since, then, none of it is your fault, which is even
>> more comforting.??? ???That said, more extreme conspiracy
>> theories are becoming more mainstream, which is obviously
>> dangerous,??? Fink adds. ???Conspiracy theories act in a
>> similar way as religious stories: they give you an explanation and
>> structure for why things are the way they are. We are in a Great Awakening
>> of conspiracy theories, and like any massive religious movement, the same
>> power it has to move people also is easily turned into a power to move
>> people against other people.???
>>
>> Rest here: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/06/the-normalization-of-conspiracy-culture/530688/
>>
>
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
wrote:
>It gets tiresome having to deal with this crap so often.
>
>People are charged with conspiracy and convicted of it on a daily basis.
>Hundreds of conspiracies by terrorists are well known and undisputed.
>Watergate, Iran Contra, and other govt. conspiracies have been proven to
>be real.
>
>Trying to demean an adversary by calling him a "conspiracy theorist" is
>nothing more than childish name-calling.
>
>It's the lazy and dishonest way of dismissing an argument without
>addressing the evidence.
>
>THE EVIDENCE IS ALL THAT MATTERS.
>
>*ALWAYS* no exceptions.
>
>
Do people think their partisan adversaries are merely mistaken, or
that they are evil?
The latter is much more poisonous to the political system.
Believing that one's adversaries are scheming and conspiring to
overthrow the Republic is much more toxic than believing they are
simply wrong and misguided.
Thus it was one thing for a liberal Democrat to disagree with George
Bush's policies. It was entirely another for a 9/11 "Truther" to
believe that Bush (or Cheney) orchestrated the 9/11 attacks.
>
>
>stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Something for all sides - Democrats, Republicans, liberals, lone nutters,
>> conspiracists, Trumpists, and anti-Trumpists - to consider.
>>
>> One of the key grafs: "Conspiracy theories are easy ways to tell difficult
>> stories. They provide a storyline that makes a harsh or random world seem
>> ordered. ???Especially if it???s ordered against you,???
>> he says. ???Since, then, none of it is your fault, which is even
>> more comforting.??? ???That said, more extreme conspiracy
>> theories are becoming more mainstream, which is obviously
>> dangerous,??? Fink adds. ???Conspiracy theories act in a
>> similar way as religious stories: they give you an explanation and
>> structure for why things are the way they are. We are in a Great Awakening
>> of conspiracy theories, and like any massive religious movement, the same
>> power it has to move people also is easily turned into a power to move
>> people against other people.???
>>
>> Rest here: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/06/the-normalization-of-conspiracy-culture/530688/
>>
>
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
stevemg...@yahoo.com
Jun 19, 2017, 7:29:03 PM6/19/17
to
the "mainstreaming" of such views, i.e., your opponent is not wrong but is
plotting to undermine the country.
It's this view, I think, that has dominated much of the JFK conspiracy
side. At least, the "political types" who see this through the political
lenses, e.g., JFK was killed by the militarist/anti-communist "deep
state."
stevemg...@yahoo.com
Jun 19, 2017, 7:33:50 PM6/19/17
to
theories, demonizing the other side with them and mainstreaming them to go
after each other.
It's not whether conspiracies actually occur. Everybody acknowledges that
conspiracies occur.
Imagine a political world where we have Alex Jones believers on one side
and Keith Olbermann believers on the other? That's going to lead to a,
literally, civil war. There's no area for compromise when the two sides
view each other through those perspectives.
Jason Burke
Jun 19, 2017, 9:46:44 PM6/19/17
to
On 6/19/17 10:42 AM, Robert Harris wrote:
> It gets tiresome having to deal with this crap so often.
>
> People are charged with conspiracy and convicted of it on a daily basis.
> Hundreds of conspiracies by terrorists are well known and undisputed.
> Watergate, Iran Contra, and other govt. conspiracies have been proven to
> be real.
>
> Trying to demean an adversary by calling him a "conspiracy theorist" is
> nothing more than childish name-calling.
>
> It's the lazy and dishonest way of dismissing an argument without
> addressing the evidence.
>
> THE EVIDENCE IS ALL THAT MATTERS.
>
> *ALWAYS* no exceptions.
>
Then, uh, Harris...
> It gets tiresome having to deal with this crap so often.
>
> People are charged with conspiracy and convicted of it on a daily basis.
> Hundreds of conspiracies by terrorists are well known and undisputed.
> Watergate, Iran Contra, and other govt. conspiracies have been proven to
> be real.
>
> Trying to demean an adversary by calling him a "conspiracy theorist" is
> nothing more than childish name-calling.
>
> It's the lazy and dishonest way of dismissing an argument without
> addressing the evidence.
>
> THE EVIDENCE IS ALL THAT MATTERS.
>
> *ALWAYS* no exceptions.
>
Why don't you go play with a conspiracy that actually has, you know,
evidence?
mainframetech
Jun 20, 2017, 11:15:20 AM6/20/17
to
without their knowledge or approval? Well of course. And you think that
conspiracies never happen by other governments to acquire things they
want? Only a fool would walk along seeing what we can all see and think
all is well, and that no one is conspiring against us. Conspiracy is a
human trait used to obtain something from those that might object if they
knew about it.
Plotting and planning to get something of value without the general
public knowing is a standard human method.
Chris
mainframetech
Jun 20, 2017, 11:17:17 AM6/20/17
to
On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 1:50:25 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
> On 19 Jun 2017 13:42:33 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >It gets tiresome having to deal with this crap so often.
> >
> >People are charged with conspiracy and convicted of it on a daily basis.
> >Hundreds of conspiracies by terrorists are well known and undisputed.
> >Watergate, Iran Contra, and other govt. conspiracies have been proven to
> >be real.
> >
> >Trying to demean an adversary by calling him a "conspiracy theorist" is
> >nothing more than childish name-calling.
> >
> >It's the lazy and dishonest way of dismissing an argument without
> >addressing the evidence.
> >
> >THE EVIDENCE IS ALL THAT MATTERS.
> >
> >*ALWAYS* no exceptions.
> >
> >
>
> You are right to a degree. But there is another dimension.
>
> Do people think their partisan adversaries are merely mistaken, or
> that they are evil?
>
> The latter is much more poisonous to the political system.
>
> Believing that one's adversaries are scheming and conspiring to
> overthrow the Republic is much more toxic than believing they are
> simply wrong and misguided.
>
> Thus it was one thing for a liberal Democrat to disagree with George
> Bush's policies. It was entirely another for a 9/11 "Truther" to
> believe that Bush (or Cheney) orchestrated the 9/11 attacks.
>
As a proud CT I have to interject that Bush and Cheney did NOT
> wrote:
>
> >It gets tiresome having to deal with this crap so often.
> >
> >People are charged with conspiracy and convicted of it on a daily basis.
> >Hundreds of conspiracies by terrorists are well known and undisputed.
> >Watergate, Iran Contra, and other govt. conspiracies have been proven to
> >be real.
> >
> >Trying to demean an adversary by calling him a "conspiracy theorist" is
> >nothing more than childish name-calling.
> >
> >It's the lazy and dishonest way of dismissing an argument without
> >addressing the evidence.
> >
> >THE EVIDENCE IS ALL THAT MATTERS.
> >
> >*ALWAYS* no exceptions.
> >
> >
>
> You are right to a degree. But there is another dimension.
>
> Do people think their partisan adversaries are merely mistaken, or
> that they are evil?
>
> The latter is much more poisonous to the political system.
>
> Believing that one's adversaries are scheming and conspiring to
> overthrow the Republic is much more toxic than believing they are
> simply wrong and misguided.
>
> Thus it was one thing for a liberal Democrat to disagree with George
> Bush's policies. It was entirely another for a 9/11 "Truther" to
> believe that Bush (or Cheney) orchestrated the 9/11 attacks.
>
"orchestrate" 9/11. Look into Silverstein and company as the creator of
the idea, and he was the one that would benefit from being able to get rid
of all the Asbestos that the WTC was riddled with and that NYC was getting
ticked off about not getting any movement of abating it. Silverstein
converted a massive debt into a huge profit after all the payments were
taken care of, and the buildings had collapsed. That asbestos injured
many NY people and others that came to help with cleanup. Scientific
proof was worked out that it was controlled demolition, and Silverstein
himself gave away his involvement by lying to the media about his caring
about the people and their loss of life.
The 3 towers came down on purpose, an the proof is there, including the
explosions that helped them all.
Chris
Anthony Marsh
Jun 20, 2017, 11:19:45 AM6/20/17
to
On 6/19/2017 1:50 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 19 Jun 2017 13:42:33 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> It gets tiresome having to deal with this crap so often.
>>
>> People are charged with conspiracy and convicted of it on a daily basis.
>> Hundreds of conspiracies by terrorists are well known and undisputed.
>> Watergate, Iran Contra, and other govt. conspiracies have been proven to
>> be real.
>>
>> Trying to demean an adversary by calling him a "conspiracy theorist" is
>> nothing more than childish name-calling.
>>
>> It's the lazy and dishonest way of dismissing an argument without
>> addressing the evidence.
>>
>> THE EVIDENCE IS ALL THAT MATTERS.
>>
>> *ALWAYS* no exceptions.
>>
>>
>
> You are right to a degree. But there is another dimension.
>
> Do people think their partisan adversaries are merely mistaken, or
> that they are evil?
>
> The latter is much more poisonous to the political system.
>
Well, isn't it more fun for your cover-up to just call everything an
> On 19 Jun 2017 13:42:33 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> It gets tiresome having to deal with this crap so often.
>>
>> People are charged with conspiracy and convicted of it on a daily basis.
>> Hundreds of conspiracies by terrorists are well known and undisputed.
>> Watergate, Iran Contra, and other govt. conspiracies have been proven to
>> be real.
>>
>> Trying to demean an adversary by calling him a "conspiracy theorist" is
>> nothing more than childish name-calling.
>>
>> It's the lazy and dishonest way of dismissing an argument without
>> addressing the evidence.
>>
>> THE EVIDENCE IS ALL THAT MATTERS.
>>
>> *ALWAYS* no exceptions.
>>
>>
>
> You are right to a degree. But there is another dimension.
>
> Do people think their partisan adversaries are merely mistaken, or
> that they are evil?
>
> The latter is much more poisonous to the political system.
>
accident instead of a conspiracy? If you call it a conspiracy you have
to look for conspirators.
So you can say that those 5 guys who broke into the Watergate were just
looking for the men's room and got lost.
You can say that the JFK shooting was just an accident when the SS guy
tripped and the AR-15 went off accidentally.
You can claim that 2 planes got lost and crashed into the Twin Towers.
After all, it happened to the Empire State building.
Maybe Flynn kept his cell phone in his back pocket and accidentally butt
dialed (never thought I'd have to say that in this newsgroup) the
Russian spies.
I think there is a department in the CIA which specializes in making up
innocent excuses like this.
Anthony Marsh
Jun 20, 2017, 6:43:37 PM6/20/17
to
McCarthyism or the JBS theory about flouridation?
> It's not whether conspiracies actually occur. Everybody acknowledges that
> conspiracies occur.
>
> Imagine a political world where we have Alex Jones believers on one side
> and Keith Olbermann believers on the other? That's going to lead to a,
How many supporters does he have? 25?
One major difference is that Trump believes whatever crazy Alex Jones
conspiracy theory he reads.
> literally, civil war. There's no area for compromise when the two sides
> view each other through those perspectives.
>
agreement?
Anthony Marsh
Jun 20, 2017, 6:44:19 PM6/20/17
to
Robert Harris
Jun 20, 2017, 10:46:54 PM6/20/17
to
John McAdams wrote:
> On 19 Jun 2017 13:42:33 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> It gets tiresome having to deal with this crap so often.
>>
>> People are charged with conspiracy and convicted of it on a daily basis.
>> Hundreds of conspiracies by terrorists are well known and undisputed.
>> Watergate, Iran Contra, and other govt. conspiracies have been proven to
>> be real.
>>
>> Trying to demean an adversary by calling him a "conspiracy theorist" is
>> nothing more than childish name-calling.
>>
>> It's the lazy and dishonest way of dismissing an argument without
>> addressing the evidence.
>>
>> THE EVIDENCE IS ALL THAT MATTERS.
>>
>> *ALWAYS* no exceptions.
>>
>>
>
> You are right to a degree. But there is another dimension.
>
> Do people think their partisan adversaries are merely mistaken, or
> that they are evil?
Conspiracy is a crime. "Evil" is a term you use to demean the
> On 19 Jun 2017 13:42:33 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> It gets tiresome having to deal with this crap so often.
>>
>> People are charged with conspiracy and convicted of it on a daily basis.
>> Hundreds of conspiracies by terrorists are well known and undisputed.
>> Watergate, Iran Contra, and other govt. conspiracies have been proven to
>> be real.
>>
>> Trying to demean an adversary by calling him a "conspiracy theorist" is
>> nothing more than childish name-calling.
>>
>> It's the lazy and dishonest way of dismissing an argument without
>> addressing the evidence.
>>
>> THE EVIDENCE IS ALL THAT MATTERS.
>>
>> *ALWAYS* no exceptions.
>>
>>
>
> You are right to a degree. But there is another dimension.
>
> Do people think their partisan adversaries are merely mistaken, or
> that they are evil?
accusation.
Members of the mob are not arrested for being "evil". They
are arrested for being criminals.
>
> The latter is much more poisonous to the political system.
the allegation is true, then it is the accused who has done
the poisoning.
Consider Nixon.
>
> Believing that one's adversaries are scheming and conspiring to
> overthrow the Republic is much more toxic than believing they are
> simply wrong and misguided.
it is the evidence or lack of evidence which resolves the
question - not toxicity.
>
> Thus it was one thing for a liberal Democrat to disagree with George
> Bush's policies. It was entirely another for a 9/11 "Truther" to
> believe that Bush (or Cheney) orchestrated the 9/11 attacks.
>
evidence which proves that. If there was, then the truthers
would be heroes. I came to that conclusion BTW, by examining
the evidence. This article from Popular Mechanics in which
they interviewed top engineers about the various allegations,
is enlightening.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/
I just cringe when an idea is attacked solely on the basis
that it is a "conspiracy" or the advocate for the idea is a
"conspiracy theorist".
The evidence is everything - in the JFK case and a zillion
others.
Robert Harris
mainframetech
Jun 20, 2017, 10:49:28 PM6/20/17
to
Chris
Anthony Marsh
Jun 20, 2017, 10:58:15 PM6/20/17
to
too cowardly to come right out and say what their conspiracy theory is.
So, you've got a motive for Silververstein (although you are wrong about
what he said), but then how would he personally bring down all 3
buildings? He had explosives and planted them himself? Or he hired al
Qaeda to do it? What? Lay out your grand conspiracy and document each step
or STFU.
> The 3 towers came down on purpose, an the proof is there, including the
> explosions that helped them all.
>
> Chris
>
Anthony Marsh
Jun 21, 2017, 10:40:35 AM6/21/17
to
bigdog
Jun 21, 2017, 10:45:18 AM6/21/17
to
On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 1:42:34 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> It gets tiresome having to deal with this crap so often.
>
Now you know how the rest of us feel.
>
bigdog
Jun 21, 2017, 10:45:39 AM6/21/17
to
hijackers flew planes into them. What are the odds?
Bud
Jun 21, 2017, 10:49:42 AM6/21/17
to
On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 11:17:17 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
"conspiracy theorist" its deservedly bad name.
stevemg...@yahoo.com
Jun 21, 2017, 6:01:12 PM6/21/17
to
any way - the JFK conspiracists take it as some sort of personal attack.
The article, of course, is NOT about whether conspiracies occur or not;
it's about how the right and left are using them to attack their
opponents. Regardless of the evidence for them.
Anthony Marsh
Jun 21, 2017, 8:40:53 PM6/21/17
to
Anthony Marsh
Jun 21, 2017, 8:42:47 PM6/21/17
to
Maybe you could claim that as a devout Jew he used Mossad to hire al
Qaeda to fly the planes. Oh wait, maybe you could go all Fetzer and
claim the planes were just holograms! Yeah, that's it!!!!
mainframetech
Jun 22, 2017, 10:01:18 AM6/22/17
to
On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 6:01:12 PM UTC-4, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 10:45:18 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 1:42:34 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> > > It gets tiresome having to deal with this crap so often.
> > >
> >
> > Now you know how the rest of us feel.
>
> We've seen this repeatedly: If anyone criticizes conspiracy thinking - in
> any way - the JFK conspiracists take it as some sort of personal attack.
>
Sounds a lot like when someone shows proof that the WCR was wrong.
> On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 10:45:18 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 1:42:34 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> > > It gets tiresome having to deal with this crap so often.
> > >
> >
> > Now you know how the rest of us feel.
>
> We've seen this repeatedly: If anyone criticizes conspiracy thinking - in
> any way - the JFK conspiracists take it as some sort of personal attack.
>
> The article, of course, is NOT about whether conspiracies occur or not;
> it's about how the right and left are using them to attack their
> opponents. Regardless of the evidence for them.
Chris
mainframetech
Jun 22, 2017, 10:01:59 AM6/22/17
to
their ad hominem attacks.
Chris
mainframetech
Jun 22, 2017, 10:02:36 AM6/22/17
to
on me, but you messed up again. You said that he blew up the buildings
the same day the terrorists flew planes into them. But I said just before
that that "3 towers came down". No plane flew into the WTC 7 building,
which was 46 stories high, but it collapsed just the same as the other 2.
Now you're stuck with explaining how the 3rd building collapsed. And
when you try, I have further info for you.
Chris
Anthony Marsh
Jun 22, 2017, 3:43:47 PM6/22/17
to
On 6/21/2017 6:01 PM, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 10:45:18 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>> On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 1:42:34 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>>> It gets tiresome having to deal with this crap so often.
>>>
>>
>> Now you know how the rest of us feel.
>
> We've seen this repeatedly: If anyone criticizes conspiracy thinking - in
> any way - the JFK conspiracists take it as some sort of personal attack.
>
Well, maybe because it is meant as a personal attack by the well-paid
> On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 10:45:18 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>> On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 1:42:34 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>>> It gets tiresome having to deal with this crap so often.
>>>
>>
>> Now you know how the rest of us feel.
>
> We've seen this repeatedly: If anyone criticizes conspiracy thinking - in
> any way - the JFK conspiracists take it as some sort of personal attack.
>
minions working for the cover-up.
> The article, of course, is NOT about whether conspiracies occur or not;
> it's about how the right and left are using them to attack their
> opponents. Regardless of the evidence for them.
>
authority. How come you never ridicule Trump for believing all the
rightwing conspiracy theories?
I think we already know the answer.
Breakfast with Oswald?
Bud
Jun 22, 2017, 8:03:15 PM6/22/17
to
You guys hate facts.
bigdog
Jun 22, 2017, 8:25:58 PM6/22/17
to
On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 10:01:18 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 6:01:12 PM UTC-4, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 10:45:18 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 1:42:34 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> > > > It gets tiresome having to deal with this crap so often.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Now you know how the rest of us feel.
> >
> > We've seen this repeatedly: If anyone criticizes conspiracy thinking - in
> > any way - the JFK conspiracists take it as some sort of personal attack.
> >
>
>
> Sounds a lot like when someone shows proof that the WCR was wrong.
>
Purely hypothetical since that has never been done.
> On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 6:01:12 PM UTC-4, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 10:45:18 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 1:42:34 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> > > > It gets tiresome having to deal with this crap so often.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Now you know how the rest of us feel.
> >
> > We've seen this repeatedly: If anyone criticizes conspiracy thinking - in
> > any way - the JFK conspiracists take it as some sort of personal attack.
> >
>
>
> Sounds a lot like when someone shows proof that the WCR was wrong.
>
Bud
Jun 22, 2017, 8:31:39 PM6/22/17
to
things?
Bud
Jun 22, 2017, 8:31:59 PM6/22/17
to
> No plane flew into the WTC 7 building,
> which was 46 stories high, but it collapsed just the same as the other 2.
> Now you're stuck with explaining how the 3rd building collapsed.
https://www.nist.gov/publications/final-report-collapse-world-trade-center-building-7-federal-building-and-fire-safety-0?pub_id=861610
Anthony Marsh
Jun 22, 2017, 11:49:12 PM6/22/17
to
> Now you're stuck with explaining how the 3rd building collapsed. And
> when you try, I have further info for you.
>
> Chris
>
Anthony Marsh
Jun 23, 2017, 11:03:15 PM6/23/17
to
Anthony Marsh
Jun 23, 2017, 11:04:11 PM6/23/17
to
Bud
Jun 24, 2017, 7:49:18 PM6/24/17
to
You act like an answer can`t be given until the stupid kids in the class
figure out the answer.
OHLeeRedux
Jun 25, 2017, 7:39:51 PM6/25/17
to
Anthony Marsh
Jun 26, 2017, 2:45:10 PM6/26/17
to
0 new messages