Quote:
Originally Posted by Looger
his post was one in a long string of insults and diversions. i'm leaving it at that.
|
I would disagree. His post outlined what many CTs do. They take one piece of fact; extrapolate it and then outline their theory. Best part was this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz
Concluson: Building being evacuated = Building was brought down by a controlled demoltion
I love it!
I'll bet I can make my own.
Fact: Birds fly
Fact: The WTC was hit by things that fly
Conclusion: Disoriented pigeons brought down the WTC
|
The problem I have found with CTs is they have the "prove me wrong" line of thinking. Now I can prove BBS wrong because I saw the 2nd plane hit the WTC live on TV. But so much of what CTs say cannot be verified either way.
Now, the fact that it cannot be verified does not on its own mean it can be dismissed; however I have found many CTs who upon being confronted with a different opinion take up an attack posture, and accuse us of being sheep, or stupid; when all we are really trying to do is look at the information at hand objectively.
It isn't that I doubted the CTs to begin with. It's the "you are a stupid sheep following the heard" arguement that makes the Conspiricy Theory lose credibility for me.