Skeptic / Debunker Free Zone

miju

OK this thread has been created for conspiracy theorists to be able to openly discuss all things conspiracy theories without intervention from skeptics or debunkers.

I would personally like to encourage any skeptics / deunkers to feel free to start a new thread to debate any of the points / posts in this thread.

Now some simple rules in order to make this easier for everyone:

Skeptics / Debunkers posting in this thread will be banned for 1 week for first offence and permanently thereafter.

If you want to discuss a point please start a new thread

This does not give CTs free reign to post whatever they wish and normal forum rules apply

Anyone posting obvious (and not so obvious ) piss taking conspiracy theories will be banned from this forum permaently on the first offence

I'll sticky this thread to see how much interest there is in this and the general content that appears. If after a month or so it's not looking good then I'll just unsticky it.


You have all been warned

Diogenes

I'm just curious muji and maybe you can clarify this.

Your thread concept is vague.

Some conspiracy theorists believe in repetilian overlords, and some don't, does someone who disagrees with repetilian overlords but believes in the NWO be able to post in this thread?

Some conspiracy theorists like our own very receptive CB Brooklyn claim "no planes were flown into the WTC" yet many CTers believe that Brooklyn and his ilk are actually "disinfo" and explosives were used.

Is someone who believes Jones and Griffin are on the right track, yet believes Brooklyn is wrong, a "skeptic", and cannot post on this thread?

See what I don't understand is people who make a claim, and don't want it to be investigated by people using logic, science, and reason.

Basically muji are you suggesting that this thread is a place where people can post whatever pet theory they have, and any voice that dissents or disagrees with it, for whatever reason, is banned?

Your alternative is that if you disagree with what someone says on this thread you create a new thread is formed, in aid of what? How can this new thread reference back constantly to a seperate thread, making it enormously difficult for people to reference back to a debate.

This fudge seems to me like certain parties don't want a free and frank exchange of ideas. Some posters have compared this idea to the threads in religious forums where non believers need not apply. To that I say this; A Catholic fundamentalist believes when he or she eats communion wafer or drinks the wine they are quiet literally consuming the flesh and blood of their god, they do this on blind faith. You are literally suggesting that conspiracy theorists should be allowed believe what they want , and for it to go unchallenged.

Finally what is your yardstick for "obvious or not so obvious piss taking conspiracy theories"? Y'know who will be banned from this forum permaently on the first offence. Where does it start or end. Prince Philip had Mi5 kill Diana? The moonlandings where faked? People are posionin using chemicals dropped from airplanes? No planes hit the WTC?

Could you explain which theories of the above would face a "permanent forum ban" on their first offence?

togster

I think you should just go with it for now Diogenes. i appreciate the points you raised but miju is attempting to improve the forum and i think the thread should be allowed to run on a trial basis.

Good luck

miju

diogenes grow up my post is plain and simple to understand and i'm not going to repeat myself.

it will be up to the mods here to decide which posts are acceptable in this thread and not you.

Diogenes

miju wrote: »

diogenes grow up my post is plain and simple to understand and i'm not going to repeat myself.

it will be up to the mods here to decide which posts are acceptable in this thread and not you.

Sorry Muji your post isn't clear and simple, and you've left the concept of this thread deliberately vague, you're basically saying "post on this thread and it's possible you'll get a permanent ban based on Mod whimsy."

Just take my CB Brooklyn example, how would that work?

Jocksereire

good idea. should be interesting to see how it develops

Jocksereire

Anyway lets start some discussion.
I see the ex Italian president came out last week and stated 911 was an inside job. he now joins the ex german foreign minister and head of russias airforce who had stated the same.

"[Bin Laden supposedly confessed] to the Qaeda September [attack] to the two towers in New York [claiming to be] the author of the attack of the 11, while all the [intelligence services] of America and Europe ... now know well that the disastrous attack has been planned and realized from the CIA American and the Mossad with the aid of the Zionist world in order to put under accusation the Arabic Countries and in order to induce the western powers to take part ... in Iraq [and] Afghanistan."

Back in 2001 he said "The mastermind of the attack must have been a “sophisticated mind, provided with ample means not only to recruit fanatic kamikazes, but also highly specialized personnel. I add one thing: it could not be accomplished without infiltrations in the radar and flight security personnel.”

Now considering Cossiga was forced to resign after revealing the existence of, and his part in setting up, Operation Gladio (Gladio's specialty was to carry out what they coined "false flag operations," terror attacks that were blamed on their domestic and geopolitical opposition which killed 100s of innocent people especially the bologna train bombs......supported by as usual in terror attacks, the CIA) this adds serious weight to the ex CIA FBI personel and scientists claiming it was an inside job also.

Pity it wasnt covered on the news the help raise more awareness or questions of it here but no surprise really.

Any comments?

jessop1

Miju, thanks for setting up and stickying this thread, I'm hoping it will take off and justify setting up a dedicated sub forum but sure we'll see how things go.

Hi Jockser

jebus those english translator programs are brutal.. !
thanks for the link I hadnt heard of this.. its not just unsurprising that this has received little or no mainstream media attention when it should have, but also quite telling imo.

Oracle

It's a good idea, only snag might be the range of topics. Everything's going to turn up here, from lizards and Lord Lucan to Lady Diana. :rolleyes:

Jocksereire

Oracle wrote: »

It's a good idea, only snag might be the range of topics. Everything's going to turn up here, from lizards and Lord Lucan to Lady Diana. :rolleyes:

i agree but sure lets just deal with that when it happens, its really only an experiment thread anyway i think

Kernel

Jocksereire wrote: »

Pity it wasnt covered on the news the help raise more awareness or questions of it here but no surprise really.

Any comments?

No surprise with Rupert 'Goebbels' Murdoch's News Corporation tbh. Another interesting voice added to the conspiracy theory of 9/11. The mainstream image of kooky/crazy tinfoil hat brigade, unpatriotic CTists is still strong enough to minimise damage however.

My opinion on the mainstream view is that it stretches credulity too much based on all the inconsistencies already discussed (military manoeuvres etc.) on 9/11, together with the Bush administration personnel, political and economic circumstances at the time and blaming it on a shadow terror group who provide a conveniently undefeatable enemy (headed by an ex-CIA agent) together with the gains of the members of the administration and possible NWO agenda... How could I not be a conspiracy theorist?!?

RoundyMooney

Diogenes wrote: »

Sorry Muji

His username is Miju!

Mahatma coat

Ruondy that sort of pedanticisim dosent really advance the cause now does it

there is someting that I've been interested in for a while, one of the doccos that was put up a while ago purported that a large number of American Presidents had blood ties to European Royal families, anyone got any coroborating evidence on this?

Kernel

Mahatma coat wrote: »

there is someting that I've been interested in for a while, one of the doccos that was put up a while ago purported that a large number of American Presidents had blood ties to European Royal families, anyone got any coroborating evidence on this?

No. But GW Bush has strong ties to G Bush Snr, and Jeb Bush (Gov. of Florida where the vote was rigged). George snr. was head of the CIA and his dad made a fortune with the nazis in WW2. Oh and both are skull n' bones men, and bohemian grove. Oh and if you really want ties, check out the council on foreign relations, trilateral commission, bilderbergers and US government over the last 40 years. Pay particular attention to Henry "I would have been president but I'm not American" Kissinger and his ideas on eugenics and population control/aids/bird flu. zing!

Hobbes

I agree with Diogenes on this tbh. Otherwise every response is going to be that lizards did it. With no way to back up what they are saying it is going to be as bad as those call the others tinfoil hatters.

I mean someone tells us that 9/11 was caused by Aliens and I ask "Wheres your evidence?" I get banned?

miju

that was essentially the rule alright hobbes. however, given it's been a month since this was stickied and thus far half of the 14 posts thus far have been discussing the rules / merits of this thread i think it's safe to say this thread wont be going anywhere soon

thread unstickied / idea abandoned

jessop1

miju wrote: »

thread unstickied / idea abandoned

the idea never really stood a chance of lasting as just a stickied thread. Even if it took off as a thread how could you discuss a-z in just one thread? Where does one topic end and the next one start? The only way the idea was ever going to work was as a dedicated sub-forum.

Mahatma coat

the thread never really stood a chance as a concept Jessop.

you cant just put forward one version of events and then deny anyone the right to question them, if your theories stand up to scrutiny then there should be nothing to fear from people scrutinising them, also there has to be some kind of recourse where people can be called on the things the say, ie

Bertie is king of the Lizzards and the spire is really a platform for their transporter beams, they channel down through it into an underground bunker the size of Meath.

now in a Debunker free zone I'd be allowed to say sh1te like that without being called out and asked for some form of proof.

so its basicly harming the rest of us who are doing some research and atttempting to present things in a reasonable and rational manner.

oscarBravo

I've replied here, as it's closer to the topic.

Kernel wrote: »

Look at it this way oscarBravo. I'm all for discussing theories with those who are open minded. Of course, the nature of theories is that many are unprovable - we simply weigh up the circumstantial evidence, and our own beliefs.

That's precisely why the scientific method was created, and why it's been fine-tuned for years. Rather than weighing up evidence and beliefs, a hypothesis should be created. The hypothesis, if it is to have any credibility, must explain all the evidence available, and must be testable.

Kernel wrote: »

If other posters use the forum in a hostile way, then they are not interested in discussion, they have an agenda, and an entrenched view which is contrary to the forum.

I don't disagree. I would make the point that there is nothing confining that problem to one side of the debate. I've repeatedly pointed out the problem of certain individuals constantly turning threads into meta-discussions about the structure of this forum, to the point where I'm convinced they do it deliberately to distract attention from the fact that they've been asked awkward questions they can't answer.

Kernel wrote: »

Sometimes it can be a useful way to gain information, other times, it's a clash of ideology with one side using source A as truth and one side using source B. The source A's don't accept source B and vice versa - although it is often unclear which source is true - if any.

It shouldn't be necessary to blindly accept a source as true - for a source to be credible it should present information that is rational and verifiable.

Kernel wrote: »

An analogy: I'm sure that the paranormal or christian/islam etc. forums have no problem discussing issues with people who may not necessarily believe them. When they become hostile, and it becomes apparent that they are not interested in contributing or discussing the issues, but merely attacking the subject of the forum, they are banned or warned.

It's an interesting analogy, in that it yet again draws the parallel between conspiracy theorists and adherents to a religion. (I think it was Gordon who started a thread on the subject some time back.)

I don't subscribe to the tenets of either Christianity or Islam, but I don't go to their forums and attempt to debunk their views. Why? Because they're open about the fact that they believe something without scientific evidence. Very few Christians (outside of certain fundamentalist groups) claim that their beliefs are FACT!! and ridicule those who don't share their beliefs. That's not always the case with conspiracy theorists, some of whom have gone as far as to claim that those who disagree with them are paid disinformation agents.

Kernel wrote: »

My view is this: I wouldn't want a forum where any old ****e can be passed as truth (hoaxes etc.) but neither would I want an extension to the Skeptics forum. A lot of the friction here comes from lack of manners and class on behalf of those who consider themselves intellectually elite.

I agree. Lack of manners and class cuts both ways: I'd currently single out zippy 99's approach to the latest 9/11 thread as a clear example.