TED Conversations

Michael Fullerton

This conversation is closed.

Why is someone a "conspiracy theorist" merely because they question the government account of something? Isn't that plain old skepticism?

Skepticism is supposed to involve objectively questioning claims based on evidence. Why then is someone called a conspiracy theorist when they merely question a government's extraordinary claim which is seriously lacking in evidence?

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Aug 30 2013: Sorry, Fullerton, the evidence points towards 9/11 being far more likely the work of terrorists than am inside job....Your language exposes your bias; there IS scientific evidence FOR the collapses being the result of jet fuel creating fires that softened the frame of the towers; there is conversely almost NO credible evidence for the "Controlled collapse" scenario, nor have ANY of the required personnel involved in this scenario come forward....NO-ONE out of the hundreds required....
    • thumb
      Aug 30 2013: Prove it. Where is this magical evidence that no one is ever able to produce? Faith-based pronouncements don't cut it for me.
      • thumb
        Aug 31 2013: The evidence WAS produced, by experts...YOU chose not to believe it...What is your field of expertise that lets YOU decide that the reports of the engineers is not evidence....


        Where are the people who said "Yeah, we did it and here's how." Where are the whistle-blowers? Where are the reports of the needed massive amount of extra "maintenance" staff that would have nbeen observed in the towers prior to the attacks...Quite simply, there IS no compelling, co-ordinated evidence that points to an inside job....and plenty that substantiates the account we know is true: 4 hijacked jets...hit three targets...
        • thumb
          Aug 31 2013: In other words you have absolutely no evidence. All you have is faith. I need evidence.

          The rapid highly symmetric falls of all three buildings (WTC 7 and the Twin towers) are impossible to scientifically explain using the official story. The only time we see buildings fall that quickly and that symmetrically is when some form of controlled demolition is used. That is why there is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever to support the official fairy tale of how the buildings came down.
      • Aug 31 2013: Why, are you suggesting you have some sort of evidence that a structure can't come down quickly in a sort-of symmetrical manner by accident?
        If the conditions can be created artificially, they can also happen by chance.

        The collapse fits the science perfectly. If you don't believe me, as a civil engineer (or several if you're paranoid enough--they can't have bought/coerced all of them, especially non-American ones).
        Steel looses from its tensile strength under heat, it doesn't have to melt to fail. After all, they used to shape it by heating it and beating it with a hammer--its quite malleable while hot.

        The biggest problem I have with 9/11 being an inside job is government competence however. I honestly don't believe the US government could keep such a thing under wraps, especially with all the leaks they've had lately.
        Keeping these big operations water tight over years of scrutiny is practically impossible. All it takes is one person blowing the whistle to the press (unless you're suggesting they bought/coerced all those two, which makes for even more potential leaks, from the people most likely to blow the whistle at that).

        After all, everybody knows that the US government is testing experimental aircraft (if of perfectly human origin) in area 51 for decades now.
        • thumb
          Aug 31 2013: For a steel structure to come down so fast and so symmetrically vertical support columns need to be separated simultaneously floor by floor. There is no way gradual damage due to fire could do this. This is why it has never ever happened before in the history of civilization. The burden of proof is on those who falsely claim this extraordinary scenario is possible but steadfastly refuse to provide evidence. Instead of supporting your position you are attempting to shift the burden of proof to me. This is the burden of proof logical fallacy.

          Claiming something did no happen because you personally find it difficult to believe is the appeal to incredulity logical fallacy. I need evidence not illogic.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.