HOW TO ARGUE WITH A CONSPIRACY THEORIST

You came to the wrong place to ask this question.

Everyone on this site buys every bit of conspiracy bullshit they read/hear.

why dont you try explaining how a "fire" caused building 7 to collapse symmetrically into its own footprint; that is, exactly like a planned demolition?

See? I can't explain that! But that doesn't mean it's real! You can't explain a lot of things, but if you believe one conspiracy, you subscribe to them all. It's not fact-based anymore. It's all political.

I'm not saying you're wrong. It might have been planned. But by whom? When? How? Us? "Them"? There are so many variables, it would've been the perfect crime. This is what I mean about my theoretical argument. I know how to argue against these people, but I can't bring up any facts.

Somehow, I think it might be a flaw in their argument. They seem to be proving a negative. Is that right?

Conspiracy theorists are just like creationists.

Just because science cannot describe in exact detail how a biochemical pathway evolved, it does not mean that evolution is false.

And just like how we're not able to describe how a fire..., it does not mean that the original story is false.

Same logical fallacy.

Ask for some evidence.

You are not smart.

nuts wrote:

Conspiracy theorists are just like creationists.

Just because science cannot describe in exact detail how a biochemical pathway evolved, it does not mean that evolution is false.

And just like how we're not able to describe how a fire..., it does not mean that the original story is false.

Same logical fallacy.

Ask for some evidence.

The explanation of how WTC 7 collapsed due to fire does not merely lack "exact detail." Rather, it denies common sense and is antithetical to the laws of known physics. So, to accept the official account of WTC 7's collapse is to endorse the notion that the laws of physics were somehow magically suspended on September 11, 2001.

Is that evidence enough to persuade you that the original story is, shall we say, problematic?

Which laws of physics is it 'antithetical' (do you know what this word means? Why not say something more straightforward) to?

And perhaps you could explain in what way a building should collapse if it shouldn't collapse into it's own footprint.

It's your job to explain what happened to tower 7. The conspiracy theorists don't need to explain themselves, they're questions are obviously proof that they're right and we're all wrong.

The Mayor

If the collapse of the building was due to a fire then no, it shouldnt fall into it's own footprint. A fire would cause pieces to break off and in order for the footprint to fall into itself (like the Towers 1 & 2 did) due to a fire, that fire would have to cause a perfect collapse at equal times on every side of the building. I think that's what he was trying to say.

I understand your argument that these facts might (or might not) be true but it doesn't explain who did it? Why? How?

I'm a "conspiracy theorist" when it comes to a lot of government programs/involvements.

In a nutshell, Bush administration channeled money through Saudi Arabist elitists to "terrorists" in order to create a fear propaganda so he could assume more power for the presidency.

That's a very broad bias. Nothing is full proof but it makes you wonder.

Just tell him that any person would have done the same at 9-11 in retaliation for the rape and occupation of thier country.

If you want to see some real conspiracy theorists, head on over to the H1N1 vaccine threads. Some real nutjobs coming out of the woodworks. We're about 1 step away from them claiming AIDS was made by the government to kill blacks/gays.

Seriously, why argue? You think you can contribute something to make one of these knuckleheads change their opinion?

irony killed the cat wrote:

Seriously, why argue? You think you can contribute something to make one of these knuckleheads change their opinion?

I agree

Ask for proof that they can explain. If they can't explain it to you, it's not convincing. If it's not convincing, it's not proof. That's the whole nature of proof. Furthermore, does this person's point (the building collapse) have any supporting evidence? For instance, would this person know how a building should fall? If not, where are they getting the information from? Is this a valid source? If you dig about two or three levels into their "proof" you will generally find it doesn't have any sound basis.

And, just because it's helpful:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index

There are, of course, conspiracies.

Those engaging in these conspiracies love to see folks like you dismissing arguments as conspiracy theories.

You don't argue with them, you point and laugh at them, secure in the knowledge that you aren't as prone as they are to such farcical nonsense.

Livin Thedream wrote:

Im an Atheist, and I totally think 9/11 was partially an inside job.

Most of the 9/11 Commission has stated there should be a new investigation. They didn't even mention building 7 in their report. 100 times more money was spent chasing after Bill Clinton's pee pee than investigating the largest attack on US soil since right before WW2.

Oh, yeah, as if being an atheist somehow gives your opinions legitimacy. Grow up, douche bag.

Surprise: There are smart creationists, and there are stupid atheists. Deal with it.

Ask them where the people on Flight 77 that allegedly didn't hit the Pentagon are located. Have they been held in Guantanamo Bay all this time?

When it comes down to it, people who make these arguments just want to be "right" instead of "correct". They deflect logic and facts and cling on to emotional details because they can't cope with the fact that they might be wrong and look like an idiot. You simply can't argue with these type of people because they will never really listen to you. It's not like when you say something that directly debunks their statements they will bow down and say "Oh, I guess I was misinformed". They will always resort back to how they "feel" and "I just know that..." which is something you can't argue. Just ignore them.

Now even if you think my post is bullcrap you should read the last link. It's hilarious and works in a similar way as most conspiracy theorists (and its a joke for the slow people).