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

[Rokerijdude11]

no there is not

 

[Rokerijdude11]

But you kept making new usernames. If it were up to me (and 9sublime) -- you would be gone for good.

9 is a big boy he dosent need a worm like you speaking for him......you arent even qualified to hold his jockstrap in my book

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Isn't there freedom of speach here?

Yes there is.

 

[Rokerijdude11]

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

Not likely

 

[USMC the Almighty]

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

Not likely

Who's right to speak out has been infringed upon? And moving a thread from one forum to another doesn't count.

 

[TruthAboveAll]

USMC, thank you for bringing this issue to discussion. Since Roker and Keep... seem to question whether freedom of speech is honored here, I'm guessing they would also be outraged if they were arrested after crying "Fire!" in a packed theater.

Freedom of speech is only in effect where the government is concerned. I think it is fully reasonable to try to direct, or re-direct, specific threads to the appropriate category.

"Conspiracy" implies collusion, involving two or more persons; "Theory" is conjectural summary of a proposed explanation.

My heart goes out to the man, the subject of the video. (Yes, I did watch it.) He has real, tangible physical problems. He also has many emotional problems. Many of his "observations" about events on 9/11 were his personal assessments, based on his knowledge, perspective and beliefs.

This is not nearly sufficient as evidence. Put it this way. If you can imagine the nature of what he is saying, then juxtapose it into a one-on-one situation where a lawsuit was involved, no judge or jury would find on his behalf. The medical condition part? Definitely provable. The EPA's evaluation of air quality? That's iffy, but could possibly stand up. (Iffy, because this truly was an unprecedented event and there were factors even the EPA in their all-knowing, all-responsible position couldn't possibly qualify.)

Everything else, however, would be thrown out unless there were significant corroboration. So until the time that something definitive emerges as solid evidence, this is a subject that by definition must go to the Conspiracy Theory category. By definition, regardless what you, Roker, me... any of us believe.

 

[KeepOurFreedoms]

USMC, thank you for bringing this issue to discussion. Since Roker and Keep... seem to question whether freedom of speech is honored here, I'm guessing they would also be outraged if they were arrested after crying "Fire!" in a packed theater. After this comment I know I need not read anymore of your nonsense.
Freedom of speech is only in effect where the government is concerned. I think it is fully reasonable to try to direct, or re-direct, specific threads to the appropriate category.

"Conspiracy" implies collusion, involving two or more persons; "Theory" is conjectural summary of a proposed explanation.

My heart goes out to the man, the subject of the video. (Yes, I did watch it.) He has real, tangible physical problems. He also has many emotional problems. Many of his "observations" about events on 9/11 were his personal assessments, based on his knowledge, perspective and beliefs.

This is not nearly sufficient as evidence. Put it this way. If you can imagine the nature of what he is saying, then juxtapose it into a one-on-one situation where a lawsuit was involved, no judge or jury would find on his behalf. The medical condition part? Definitely provable. The EPA's evaluation of air quality? That's iffy, but could possibly stand up. (Iffy, because this truly was an unprecedented event and there were factors even the EPA in their all-knowing, all-responsible position couldn't possibly qualify.)

Everything else, however, would be thrown out unless there were significant corroboration. So until the time that something definitive emerges as solid evidence, this is a subject that by definition must go to the Conspiracy Theory category. By definition, regardless what you, Roker, me... any of us believe.

!!!!!

 

[USMC the Almighty]

this is a subject that by definition must go to the Conspiracy Theory category. By definition, regardless what you, Roker, me... any of us believe.

This is the bottom line. It does't matter what you may think about the validity of the 9/11 story, saying that it was orchestrated by anyone other than the Islamic terrorists is, by definition, a conspiracy theory.

 

[Rokerijdude11]

USMC, thank you for bringing this issue to discussion. Since Roker and Keep... seem to question whether freedom of speech is honored here, I'm guessing they would also be outraged if they were arrested after crying "Fire!" in a packed theater.


Roker replies;
freedom of speech is exactly that the "Freedom" to say Whatever.....you desire with "No Restrictions" ......anything,anything other than that is what can only be known as......... "Limited Freedom Of speech"............period.

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"



Freedom of speech is only in effect where the government is concerned. I think it is fully reasonable to try to direct, or re-direct, specific threads to the appropriate category.

"Conspiracy" implies collusion, involving two or more persons; "Theory" is conjectural summary of a proposed explanation.

My heart goes out to the man, the subject of the video. (Yes, I did watch it.) He has real, tangible physical problems. He also has many emotional problems. Many of his "observations" about events on 9/11 were his personal assessments, based on his knowledge, perspective and beliefs.

This is not nearly sufficient as evidence.






Roker replies;

excuse me, but there is no place in this thread where i have claimed this video to be "evidence" of anything.In this thread, i have only discussed the reasoning behind labling the video, as a "conspiracy". The man is a police officer.......that has to give him some credability?.......
He simply was telling his story .And all i said,is that does not constitute a conspircay

as your defenition states, 2 are needed for the conspiracy.
So a single eyewitness account, cannot be defined as a conspiracy anyhow






Put it this way. If you can imagine the nature of what he is saying, then juxtapose it into a one-on-one situation where a lawsuit was involved, no judge or jury would find on his behalf. The medical condition part? Definitely provable. The EPA's evaluation of air quality? That's iffy, but could possibly stand up. (Iffy, because this truly was an unprecedented event and there were factors even the EPA in their all-knowing, all-responsible position couldn't possibly qualify.)

Everything else, however, would be thrown out unless there were significant corroboration. So until the time that something definitive emerges as solid evidence, this is a subject that by definition must go to the Conspiracy Theory category. By definition, regardless what you, Roker, me... any of us believe.

"Conspiracy" implies collusion, involving two or more persons; "Theory" is conjectural summary of a proposed explanation.


we have one man .....re-canting his experience on that day
this does not imply collusion...it dos not fit the defenition of a conspiracy

 

[ArmChair General]

Who's the decider when it comes to what is a 'conspiracy theory'?

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Who's the decider when it comes to what is a 'conspiracy theory'?

Merriam-Webster.

 

[Castle]

we have one man .....re-canting his experience on that day this does not imply collusion...it dos not fit the defenition of a conspiracy

Ahhh yes, one man making assertions that contradicts so many other accounts. Of course, those that require an alternate accounting of that day will cling to this if, for no other reason, to further their agenda. If you do not wish to be included in this group, I suggest you refrain from your petty personal attacks and focus on providing factual evidence that challenges popular belief.

I make no claims as to the validity of his experience but the facts remain. This is still a theory that does not support the facts as we know them. You are not prevented from stating your opinions on this subject.

A subject that currently belongs where it is.

-Castle

 

[Rokerijdude11]

Ahhh yes, one man making assertions that contradicts so many other accounts. Of course, those that require an alternate accounting of that day will cling to this if, for no other reason, to further their agenda. If you do not wish to be included in this group, I suggest you refrain from your petty personal attacks and focus on providing factual evidence that challenges popular belief.

i suggest you re-examine . Im not commenting on the validity of what the man is saying,or if what he says holds any truths or not. Nor am i attacking anyone .

I am commenting on the fact that a very large percentage of his video simply describes what happened to him that day and he related his experiences..

yes...he also eluded there may be more here than meets the eye . But i did not support that ,nor was i commenting on it etc. what we had was ONE man ...telling his story

that does NOT constitute a "Conspiracy" period............
all it is is a man saying his piece.there arent 2 people
there is no collusion........

I make no claims as to the validity of his experience but the facts remain. This is still a theory that does not support the facts as we know them. You are not prevented from stating your opinions on this subject.

A subject that currently belongs where it is.

-Castle

how does this mans story fall in the defenition of "conspiracy"

 

[Rokerijdude11]

Ahhh yes, one man making assertions that contradicts so many other accounts. Of course, those that require an alternate accounting of that day will cling to this if, for no other reason, to further their agenda. If you do not wish to be included in this group, I suggest you refrain from your petty personal attacks and focus on providing factual evidence that challenges popular belief.

i suggest you re-examine . Im not commenting on the validity of what the man is saying,or if what he says holds any truths or not. Nor am i attacking anyone .

I am commenting on the fact that a very large percentage of his video simply describes what happened to him that day and he related his experiences..

yes...he also eluded there may be more here than meets the eye . But i did not support that ,nor was i commenting on it etc. what we had was ONE man ...telling his story

that does NOT constitute a "Conspiracy" period............
all it is is a man saying his piece.there arent 2 people
there is no collusion........

I make no claims as to the validity of his experience but the facts remain. This is still a theory that does not support the facts as we know them. You are not prevented from stating your opinions on this subject.

A subject that currently belongs where it is.

-Castle

how does this mans story fall in the defenition of "conspiracy"


here is from USMC source

Main Entry: con·spir·a·cy
Pronunciation: k&n-'spir-&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Middle English conspiracie, from Latin conspirare
1 : the act of conspiring together
2 a : an agreement among conspirators b : a group of conspirators
synonym see PLOT

where does this mans re-canting of the days events fall into the above defenition?

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Jesus Christ, Roker. KOF clearly posted the video to support the position that 9/11 was an inside job (hence the title of the thread).

The definition of a conspiracy theory, according to Merriam-Webster 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 perpetrated by the government fits this definition. End of story.