On Mar 14, 6:56 pm, "
wrote:
-

Loser.
This person was 6 basement levels down.http://youtube.com/watch?v=TSGZYP--wz0-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

and even if she is confused about the bomb, as Dave is going to say,
by daves logic, they wouldnt have felt or heard a thing in the
basement....

so either way, this is a bad interview for dave......

so it had to have been a bomb in the basement right? Cause dave, you
know there is now way the plane coulda shook an elevator in the
basement? Isnt that what you said in one of you carefully numbered
points up above?

So which is it, did a bomb go off, or do you far less about the layout
of the WTC than you wanted us to think.

You can have it both ways. Which one are you going to admit to being
wrong about?

Congratulations from your posts you have scored a 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, and
finished with a brilliant 9 from the following list.

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who
are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies
for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no
matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they
have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you
listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say
"no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they
have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous
length.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise
their determination to the principle of questioning everything,
they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about
the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui
bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance
of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have
eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be
the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are
attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce
positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the
impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which
means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui
bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the
principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the
small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by
the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any
alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have
no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the
respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by
anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that
the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a
matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course,
they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for
apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy
theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be
without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of
the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see
3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by
"swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond
to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed
to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having
remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel
on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the
account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in
timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same
kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account
clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it
is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either
relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims.
This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna
station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and
demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some
weight (because it's "happened before".) They do not pause to reflect
that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more
unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which
they make comparison, or that the fact that something might
potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other
than extremely unlikely.

10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the
body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are
producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which
need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most
important thing about these people is that they are people entirely
lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad
one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot
tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always
come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over
again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac,
then at very least, a bore.

Harry K