Quote from: Carlton Banks on August 09, 2014, 12:36:45 PM

I would like to remind you all to stop using this polarising language.

The unofficial 9/11 narrative is not a "conspiracy theory", it is evidence of both identified and unidentified actors that played highly significant roles that went unrecognized in the official US government/media narrative.

Using the "conspiracy theory" expression simply plays into the hands of those who would prefer to marginalise the proponents of that unrecognised evidence. There is nothing theoretical, nor does any of the unrecognised evidence prove any collusion between any parties. That evidence is derived from witnesses and recorded observations that contribute additional forensic/scientific analysis of the event. So, with no theory component, and no conspiring component, there is no conspiracy theory.

These words we use have meanings, let's actually use them in a way that adheres to their meaning and that's consistent.

Thank you for being a much needed voice of reason in this...dare I call it debate?

I bolded what I consider to be the most important message of your post. The founder of General Semantics Alfred Korzybski made the observation that the structure of the language we use influences the thoughts we think and by extension the actions we do and the social institutions we build. I think there is a lot of truth in that observation which is why I keep looking out for the language people use and reminding them to examine the assumptions implicit in the language they are using more closely.

Quote from: wikipedia

Korzybski's work maintained that human beings are limited in what they know by (1) the structure of their nervous systems, and (2) the structure of their languages. Human beings cannot experience the world directly, but only through their "abstractions" (nonverbal impressions or "gleanings" derived from the nervous system, and verbal indicators expressed and derived from language). Sometimes our perceptions and our languages actually mislead us as to the "facts" with which we must deal. Our understanding of what is happening sometimes lacks similarity of structure with what is actually happening.

Too often we see this:

Quote from: Wekkel on August 09, 2014, 08:36:44 AM

Quote from: ErisDiscordia on August 09, 2014, 08:11:37 AM

Quote from: Wary on August 09, 2014, 07:56:41 AM

Quote from: kireinaha on August 09, 2014, 05:00:22 AM

I respected Risto's intellect until I realized on this page that he's another of the 9/11 "truther" idiots.

It's not about intellect. It's other cognitive feature, I'm not sure what to call it. Skepticism? Gullibility? Self-deception? It's compatible with any level of intellect, from very high to very low.

Heh. When you respect someones intellect but suddenly lose that respect because you disagree with some conclusions (which were arrived at by a respectable intellect!) you lose that respect? Seems to me this says more about your intellect than his Wink

It's called human nature....

well...

Quote from: wikipedia

In the 1947 preface to the third edition of Science and Sanity, Korzybski wrote, "We need not blind ourselves with the old dogma that 'human nature cannot be changed,' for we find that it can be changed."

Posters, please consider and examine the language you are using.

Quote from: ErisDiscordia

The greater our awareness of the structures of our own nervous systems and the languages we are using grows, the greater freedom and sanity we gain