Truthers, Birthers, Deathers; now ... um ... Assasinators? Massacrers? Shootingers?

[Lemur]

I can't think of a good name for the latest sub-population of conspiracy theorists. Seems that some folks are arguing that the Giffords shooting was an elaborate hoax staged by professional actors and the guvmint.



I swear, if I had a penny for every lunatic fringe group ... anyway, given how the Truthers and Birthers did not go away when the mainstream media ignored them, normal news outlets are covering this as if it were a real story.

Question:

Should MSM give small-population loons attention? Argument against: Legitimizes them. Argument for: Ignoring hasn't worked real good lately.

[Samurai Waki]

Poor woman... she doesn't deserve this crap. I'd say exile them to one of those islands we tested nukes on back in the '60s... but then we have that damn constitution in the way...

[PanzerJaeger]

Eh.. I don't see this one catching on like the others. Every good conspiracy theory needs an extraordinary outcome to justify the time and energy the perpetrators supposedly put into planning and execution. For the Truthers, it was two wars in the Middle East, and for the Birthers, it was the election of a president unqualified to serve.

I personally believe FDR had knowledge of an impending attack on Pearl Harbor and let it happen to create a suitable environment to pursue his interventionist intentions. Again, the outcome is big and important enough to justify the conspiracy.

In this case, however, such a conspiracy would require the cooperation of hundreds if not thousands of people - all committed to an outrageous lie. But what was the outcome? The author of the site says it was to push an anti-free speech, anti-gun agenda, yet no significant legislation of any kind has emerged from the tragedy. The president wrote an anti-gun op-ed in the local paper, and that was it.

[Lemur]

Every good conspiracy theory needs an extraordinary outcome to justify the time and energy the perpetrators supposedly put into planning and execution.

I had never considered it from that angle. Interesting. What would be the extraordinary outcome of faking the moon landing, then? And what would be the outcome of a giant conspiracy to murder JFK? (Assuming the death of a sitting president is not, in and of itself, a giant outcome, and, hmmm, maybe that's enough in and of itself.)

[gaelic cowboy]

I had never considered it from that angle. Interesting. What would be the extraordinary outcome of faking the moon landing, then?

Well I suppose it could be a conspiracy to prevent people finding out the world was flat after all.

[lars573]

I had never considered it from that angle. Interesting. What would be the extraordinary outcome of faking the moon landing, then? And what would be the outcome of a giant conspiracy to murder JFK? (Assuming the death of a sitting president is not, in and of itself, a giant outcome, and, hmmm, maybe that's enough in and of itself.)

On the moon landing: To make sure that JFK's challenge was met.

On JFK getting slotted: To put a more agreeable (to the anti-commie reactionaries in the US military and intelligence services) man in the top spot

[Ituralde]

On the moon landing: To make sure that JFK's challenge was met.

On JFK getting slotted: To put a more agreeable (to the anti-commie reactionaries in the US military and intelligence services) man in the top spot

So first they make him look good and then they kill him?

Nah, guess I've heard crazier theories.

[jirisys]

given how the Truthers and Birthers did not go away when the mainstream media ignored them

Aren't the originators of that "fringe group" 9/11 families?



If you had read the 9/11 commission report, some mistakes are so laughable a 10 year old can point it out. Not to mention any person with any amount of knowledge of physics.

I'm not saying somebody did it. I'm saying the government said some utter stupid stuff.

~Jirisys ()

[Lemur]

Oh, somebody did it, alright. A group called Al Qaeda. That's never been in serious contention.

It's also possible that a giant invisible penguin attacked the U.S.A. on 9/11/01 ... it's just extremely unlikely. Don't cut yourself on Occam's Razor, there.

Also, the earliest truthers on record were not families, although a few did join that deluded cause.

Going back to my point: Should lunatic fringe theories and theorists get mainstream attention? I'm beginning to believe the answer is "yes."

[Centurion1]

I would say the birthers while ridiculous absolute bull**** artists are nowhere near the same level and insanity as the truthers and this....... giffords thing.

Edit: And gaelic those engineers have been corrupted by big brother.

[gaelic cowboy]

Such a laugh yea Big Brother who couldnt even rustle up a simple fake nuke in Iraq to justify war but they pulled off the most complicated fake plane crashing in history.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well this is just too crazy, the guv'ment couldn't pull something like this off, its too big to pull off a conspiracy.

What the video does make clear is that this was all very well planned, and it is obviously a conspiracy by a tight-knit fringe far-right militia group, designed to frame the government and make it look like it planned the whole thing.

With birtherism dying down, they must have known they needed something else to discredit the Obama administration.

[jirisys]

Oh, somebody did it, alright. A group called Al Qaeda. That's never been in serious contention.

It's also possible that a giant invisible penguin attacked the U.S.A. on 9/11/01 ... it's just extremely unlikely. Don't cut yourself on Occam's Razor, there.

Also, the earliest truthers on record were not families, although a few did join that deluded cause.

Going back to my point: Should lunatic fringe theories and theorists get mainstream attention? I'm beginning to believe the answer is "yes."

Strawman, I don't care who did it. That's not my point.

Ad absurdum. Never said that. I am not saying there weren't any planes.

I doubt a building on fire can collapse like it did (WTC 7), Steel doesn't melt at fire temperature, or else turbines wouldn't resist the termperatures. Heck, bunsen burners are barely able to melt steel. It can damage, sure. but really, falling down like that, well. That can be almost impossible in my book. Even debris

Anyways, they should get no attention IMO. I am questioning assertions here, not making my own. It's pretty simple, skepticism. Have you seen this crash: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al_Flight_1862 It hardly made the whole building collapse, and it was a 747. They were making a 90 degree bank. The reason of the narrowness of the impact.

Hey, I'm just saying, don't believe everything that you hear .

Though this is getting off topic. Just wanted to clarify.

~Jirisys ()

[Samurai Waki]

SI doubt a building on fire can collapse like it did (WTC 7), Steel doesn't melt at fire temperature, or else turbines wouldn't resist the termperatures. Heck, bunsen burners are barely able to melt steel. It can damage, sure. but really, falling down like that, well. That can be almost impossible in my book. Even debris

This is one of the worst cases of grasping at straws when it comes down to the WTC collapse. "Fire" Can indeed melt steel how do you think they formed the pylons, crossbeams and buttresses for the buildings to begin with? It comes down to the grade of the steel, and it's been proven again and again that the steel in several parts of the world trade center were of inferior quality, and would've melted at a lower temperature than high grade steel.

Ugh, don't want to turn this into a 9/11 conspiracy theory debate.

[jirisys]

Ugh, don't want to turn this into a 9/11 conspiracy theory debate.

Yet here we are.

Let's drop it already. I just find it very annoying that people consider myself a truther, and then a conspiracy theorist. I am a non-truther if you will. Here only to observe and discard.

I think I wish to reiterate my point of not giving them attention, to "giving them attention". As always, the more attention you give them, the more attendees will laugh at them when it fails. Kinda like May 22. If only the mass of american people were not either "We love good ol USA and white house tells truth all time, you a commie or conspiracy theorist when you deny this!" and "the government always lies, never trust it, it's never real, nothing is real, the footage was filmed and aired later"; then it would make for a more rational outcome.

It's like stopping a bank robbery because one man was black. Good idea, bad reason.

I do not trust any government whatsoever, but not for the wrong reasons. I do not trust them because most politicians are not to be trusted because of their past actions or intentions.

Now the American involvement (and subsequent denials about that) on the 9/11 coup d'etat on Chile is much more obvious.

~Jirisys (I know it's incoherent. I'm falling asleep here.)

[gaelic cowboy]

I doubt a building on fire can collapse like it did (WTC 7), Steel doesn't melt at fire temperature, or else turbines wouldn't resist the termperatures. Heck, bunsen burners are barely able to melt steel. It can damage, sure. but really, falling down like that, well. That can be almost impossible in my book. Even debris

Steel is even more likely to collapse than timber the reason is the fact the steel expands and breaks it's concrete casing, jet fuel burns at a massive heat but it does not need to even get close to melting for the building to be weakened.

Anyways, they should get no attention IMO. I am questioning assertions here, not making my own. It's pretty simple, skepticism. Have you seen this crash: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al_Flight_1862 It hardly made the whole building collapse, and it was a 747. They were making a 90 degree bank. The reason of the narrowness of the impact.

That building is prob only ten floors the weight differential comes into play here. (Jirisys the link is broken you need to edit the link you added a bracket to the web address)

[Populus Romanus]

Have you seen this crash: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al_Flight_1862 It hardly made the whole building collapse, and it was a 747. They were making a 90 degree bank. The reason of the narrowness of the impact.

~Jirisys ()

A 90 degree bank, yes, but their with their right wing pointed straight at the ground. Not at all like 9/11 due to the fact that the wing would hit the ground before the fuselage touches the buildings, causing the plane to ripped apart before it can deal any significant* structural damage.

*compared to the potential damage, 39 people incinerated is no insignificant total.

[gaelic cowboy]

Aren't the originators of that "fringe group" 9/11 families?



If you had read the 9/11 commission report, some mistakes are so laughable a 10 year old can point it out. Not to mention any person with any amount of knowledge of physics.

I'm not saying somebody did it. I'm saying the government said some utter stupid stuff.

~Jirisys ()

What physics???? any engineer will tell the planes brought the towers down.

As regards the OP hopefully the american public are smarter than this fella and his loonism