http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/08/08 … ubblebine/
"Veteran's Today" is hardly some sort of "conspiratorial" publication. I just found this interesting.
"...hardly some sort of "conspiratorial" publication" Really?
Did you look at any other parts of the site?
Almost every story I clicked was about; conspiracy, our government lies, our government is bad, and other negative and subversive stories. After 3 or 4 articles, I looked at some of the "editorials" and guest comments... Oh my! UFOs are real and the aliens are shape shifters walking among us.
Finally, the Truth! Perhaps you would find this one interesting too: Official FBI Documents Admit Government Found UFOs, Alien Bodies
That's not Veteran's Today, so I don't see your point.
I guess you don't like that such a high ranking General is saying something you viscerally dislike. You can't say anyone who questions the official story is a college student with too much time on their hands.
I don't think I addressed the General's statements - directly, ( although I did by association).
I was addressing your pronouncement that Veterans Today was "...hardly some sort of "conspiratorial" publication" The site seems to be dedicated to conspiracy theories an d government bashing.
As for the college student reference... if I was going to pose such a thought, I probably would have used old codgers in front of their desktop screens as the example.
Whether or not I agree with the General, or Veterans Today's philosophy wasn't stated. Although a safe assumption could probably be inferred.
I responded before reading the rest of the thread... I see that you have already received plenty of conflicting opinions about the validity of your non-conspiratorial claim for the site. Sorry if I seemed to be piling on.
I'm focused more on the intellectual engagement with a particular point of view. Just because something may initially seem outlandish, that doesn't mean that something isn't true. Labeling it a "conspiracy" isn't anything but that, labeling.
Based on what is right on their site they are pro 9/11 conspiracy, pro Zionist conspiracy, pro Masonic conspiracy, pro JFK assassin conspiracy, pro Sandy hook hoax conspiracy etc etc etc--did you even look at this site? I doubt they have ever met a conspiracy theory they didn't like.
I don't think most people believe the official story about the JFK assassination. The other ones, eh? 9/11 is up for debate. You can't use that as a smear without begging the question.
Sandy Hook is a right-wing conspiracy, not a left wing one (unlike 9/11, which spans both sides of the aisle). I already assumed Veteran's Today would lean to the right. I just meant that they have a variety of points of view, and do provide helpful links for Veterans, not that they are perfect.
The point still stands about the General. It doesn't mean he is right. But what his opinion does show is that not everyone who doesn't completely buy into the official 9/11 story is a quack.
There is also the physicist Steven Jones from Brigham Young University, along with Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth, people who have the science background to know the official story doesn't hold up.
I also suggest you read about Operation Northwoods if you haven't already.
Why are these conspiracy theories still just theories, after years of haranguing about them?
Could it be there is zero evidence to prove them, just questions designed to provide doubt but never solid fact?
It depends on what you mean by "theory." If you mean it in the scientific sense, then something achieving the status of a theory is a point in it's favor.
That's not the everyday meaning of theory though. Most people mean something like, "an educated guess based on the currently available information that is consistent with that information."
There's also a question here of what is meant by "conspiracy." There is a fallacy known as slanting, which is prejudging a belief before actually engaging with it. We are all guilty of this. I am as guilty as anyone. Calling a belief "absurd" or "stupid" or something only "idiots believe" prejudges the audience to see that belief as not even deserving real consideration. The way to argue is to first establish that the belief is nothing but a conspiracy theory so you aren't putting the cart before the horse.
You're also not taking into account how much psychology plays a role. Would anyone want to believe a shadow government was behind 9/11, or that their government would actually be insidious enough to let an attack happen, to then go and justify a war (which subsequently happened)? People want to believe their world is stable and their leaders are trustworthy; otherwise, the world is a scary, dangerous place. Additionally, Steven Jones was also fired from BYU after he spoke out. Some people value their career more than the truth.
Conspiracy theories can persist for a variety of reasons. Not all have evidence (such as Obama being a secret Kenyan Muslim). But after reading about Operation Northwoods, is it inconceivable that elements within the U.S. government wouldn't be capable of pulling off something like 9/11?
I also want to know if you investigated any of the sources I provided? There's also a Journal of 9/11 studies, as well as Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice. There are "experts" on this, and they are disagreeing with the official story.
I'm not claiming Bush was sitting in a secret room plotting everything. I believe the U.S. government is divided against itself, so it wouldn't surprise me if someday we learn that one branch (or agency, or department) of government did something without the other branches knowledge...Of course, we know that would never happen!
My point is you said they are not a 'conspiratorial' publication. And they are, big time. The fact that you seem to also be supportive of many conspiracy theories is not really helping you case that this particular conspiracy theory is somehow difference or unusually convincing.
I'm not sure if something is a "conspiracy theory" in the sense you are using the word when there are experts on what happened that disagree with the official story.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/reso … nSmith.pdf Written by a Public Administration professor at Florida State University.
He includes Watergate,but there are others as well. Vietnam is the one that most immediately comes to mind.
http://www.businessinsider.com/true-gov … es-2013-12
by sannyasinman6 years ago
. . and that the official explanation is a physical impossibility. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkXeNawH … r_embedded
by Specialkizza7 years ago
I ask this question to all readers and myself. I ask that everyone who frequents this topic to please reply. Feel free to elaborate and converse. Thank You. Its both for me. I can't remember when I felt more passionate...
by deegle7 years ago
Who is to blame for conspiracy theories? The ones that reports or exposes them or the ones that conceals activities that get discovered then gets leaked to those that reports or exposes them?
by Keith Ham4 years ago
I've heard it all a thousand times and more. The this, the that, the whatever, the evil organizations. In fact, just moments ago I received a comment on how FB was invented by the CIA, isn't that crazy? I know some of...
by cfin2 years ago
Was the United States of America set up to be "The New World Order" with all of the relevant symbols enshrined in it's scared doctrines and even it's money.Europe, the old world. The USA, the New World. One...
by Arthur Fontes7 years ago
Is evolution a reality? Did humans really evolve from monkeys who evolved from fish who evolved from single cell organisms?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.