How about instead of "believing" one side and then the other over and over, you simply make the decision to not "believe" anything. Collect data, verify it, hypothesize about it, discuss it with others. You should reserve forming a solid opinion about anything that is happening. There will most likely always be more information that might take you on another path. Keep an open mind.

Agreed

GMO shilling and lobbyists blocking GMO-labelling laws has been debunked?

Democrats lying their way into the White House and then shitting on their liberal base has been debunked?

US torture and indefinite detainment has been debunked?

Corporate control over our health care system and the lawmakers who sold us out (Obamacare) has been debunked?

Police corruption and power abuses have been debunked?

Bankster corruption, insider trading, front-running, have been debunked?

FBI/CIA/Police collusion to investigate, intimidate, harass, and even plan to assassinate innocent protesters has been debunked?

Reddit mod shilling and collusion to control what disinformation gets called "politics" and "technology" and "world news", or even "news" on social media has been debunked?

And so on.

Edit: don't forget the nuclear / Fukushima shills who cover up massive nuclear accidents that harm innocents, especially children. For profit.

Another important thing is to be careful how you extrapolate.

• total idiot claims shadows on the moon prove fakery (barf)

• this is easily debunked

• therefore we went to the moon (Wrong conclusion!)

I am in that unpopular group that still believes the Apollo footage was faked. Debunking silly shit that I never considered in my decision doesn't sway me.

Like another user pointed out, you are choosing to believe narratives based on evidence, rather than believing evidence based on evidence.

Think for yourself.

You should carry your research one step further by checking out those who debunk the debunkers, especially with 9/11.

Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory

Edit: 9/11 WTC-chips are not paint and produce a thermite reaction: Dr. James Millette is wrong

To be honest, I'm not sure I believe your little anecdote about how you were a precocious conspiracy theorist and then saw the error of your ways, found Jesus or whatever, when you were older and "wiser". It really doesn't work like that, unless you had a brain injury or something you're not telling us about?

The word "debunked" is very powerful trigger-word, because when people read that a conspiracy theory has been debunked, they tend to believe it without checking if the debunking is valid. Often it is not. But I think you know that.

It really doesn't work like that, unless you had a brain injury or something you're not telling us about?

So you're suggesting that if someone doesn't believe the way you do, it means they must have sustained brain damage?

Interesting. It rings a little familiar, actually.

The moon hoax ideas are silly. (sorry guys)

Sandyhook is up for debate. Measuring ears is dumb. That doesn't mean all points are dumb, and even if it wasn't a conspiracy it strongly suggests that our FEMA and DHS disaster strategies and evidence processing is real crap.

9/11 has a bunch of solid evidence behind it. This is NOT debunked, and the only debunkings I have seen are fundementally composed of: "NIST!" and "NUH UH!!!" The science cannot even be properly tested by either side because they won't release the models...

One at a time there buddy. The biggest difficulty in analyzing conspiracy is the orbiting garbage. It muddies real investigation AND makes for some poor excuses of debunking.

It is always wise to see both sides to an argument. I use the same techniques as far as trying to debunk an idea. I am curious to know your thoughts on 9-11. Why have they kept the pentagon videos so top secret? It seems to add fuel to the fire since they never released any video of planes flying into the pentagon, except for those 2 super grainy videos. Any thoughts on that?

Amazing how those debunkers are always unbiased and factually correct /s

all aspects and all details of 9/11

Debunk this:

http://www.reddit.com/r/911truth/comments/20kbeo/september_11_the_new_pearl_harbor_indexed_with/

For every conspiracy theory argument there is an equally valid counter argument. Sometimes one side or the other is proven, sometimes it never is.

If you were to always go with the 'debunked' argument, then you automatically must believe there has never, ever been a conspiracy theory that has been proven true.

Maybe consider viewing a conspiracy a little more scientifically and adjust your personal theory (not 'belief) to fit new information.

with all aspects and all details of 9/11.

All you have to prove is that the 911 Commission Report is a lie. If the "Official Story" is a lie, then there was never a real investigation. You don't have to listen to a bunch of people argue over free fall speeds to know it's a fraud.

http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2012/06/RIR-120614.php

Red Ice is a good site. You can access it on youtube.

and they want me to pay a subscription fee to hear more,

LOL. What News website doesn't monetize their product? Since CBS plays commercials how could you ever believe what they say?

My man. The final conclusion of the 911 commission report, the reason they said it happened, was that there was a "failure of imagination". They literally concluded that it was impossible for anyone to have predicted that terrorists would ever think to fly a plane into a building. That is literally the last chapter of the 911 commission report and you need to confirm that for yourself.

But this is a direct lie. How do we know its a lie? Because of Operation Northwoods. Operation Northwoods literally proposed flying planes into the Empire State building in order to blame it on the cubans. Please confirm this fact for yourself. The joint chiefs of staff signed off on this plan in 1961.

So am I saying that 911 was Operation Northwoods was 911? No. Im saying the conclusion to the 911 commission report is a BIG FUCKING LIE and Operation Northwoods proves it (because flying planes into buildings was obviously "imagined" 50 years ago. 911 is a fraud and if you can't see it, you don't understand MKUltra and you don't understand the truth.

Operation Northwoods literally proposed flying planes into the Empire State building in order to blame it on the cubans. Please confirm this fact for yourself.

How about give us a link. The Wikipedia article has no mention of the Empire State Building at all.

The joint chiefs of staff signed off on this plan in 1961.

And Kennedy rejected it pretty quick. He even removed the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff because of it. Nobody else really took it seriously.

How about give us a link.

http://www.dc911truth.org/flyers/11-11-06-handouts/Operation%20Northwoods.pdf

Nobody else really took it seriously.

IT GOT ALL THE WAY TO THE PRESIDENT. The Joint Chiefs of Staff signed it and were ready to go. But that's not even the point.

The point is that the entire 911 Commission Report comes to a single conclusion. That is conclusion is that "We could never have imagined anybody would ever think to fly a plane into a building so we weren't expecting that". But people aware of Operation Northwoods (the entire military and most awake and aware people) have heard of exactly that.

And Kennedy rejected it pretty quick.

And if a similar plan was put in front of Dick Cheney, do you think he would do the same thing JFK did? What if we knew for a fact that a plan was put in front of Cheney which called for "a new Pearl Harbor". What would you think about that? That exact plan was called The "Plan for a New American Century" and it called for a "New Pearl Harbor". So Operation Northwoods and the PNAC were the same plan presented to different Presidents. JFK refused and was dead a year later. How is Dick Cheney doin?

Wake up friend.

http://www.dc911truth.org/flyers/11-11-06-handouts/Operation%20Northwoods.pdf

Ctrl-F "empire state" : Not found.

Try again.

That exact plan was called The "Plan for a New American Century"

*Project. It was the "Project for a New American Century".

and it called for a "New Pearl Harbor".

No it didn't. All it said was that change would be slow unless there was a major event like it, which is true. It doesn't necessarily call for it though. So no, they weren't the same plan. Not even slightly. And Cheney was never President.

And here's an important nuance that many conspiracy theorists fail to grasp: Yes, 9/11 was absolutely exploited for a variety of purposes, but that does not mean that the people exploiting it had anything to do with it or that they knew about it beforehand.

Wake up friend.

Nobody takes you seriously when you say that.

Richard grove named everyone involved. He explained how it all went down. He worked there and witnessed the fraud with his own eyes. He named names and explained who, what and why.

The fbi and congress have admitted that the Saudi government was involved as well. So if you continue to keep your head in the sand, you have the freedom to make that choice. I live in a world where knowing the truth is important to me, no matter how uncomfortable those truths may be. Its clear that you don't have the courage to face the truth and its fine that you make that decision.

You keep trying to change the subject. I'm done talking to you.

Also, just read this: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/04/fbi-report-implicates-saudis-in-911.html

That has nothing at all to do with Operation Northwoods.

Its further proof of the fraud. Do you acknowledge that the Saudi government was involved in 911, or do you deny it?

That doesn't matter right now because you were talking and I was asking about Operation Northwoods, which you claim is proof of a 9/11 conspiracy because it proposes flying an airplane into the Empire State Building:

Operation Northwoods literally proposed flying planes into the Empire State building in order to blame it on the cubans. Please confirm this fact for yourself.

Well I just searched through the full text of the actual document proposing Operation Northwoods and it does no such thing. There is no mention whatsoever of flying any plane into the Empire State Building or any other. You are either misinformed, or lying.

[deleted]

Whatever. Bottom line is that there was a proposal to fly a military plane into a building and use it to start a war.

Maybe there was, but it absolutely was not Operation Northwoods. Show me what it was though and I might start believing you.

The point is that you said 911 truth was "debunked". That is an obvious delusion you have.

Show me where I said that. That's right, I didn't. You're lying.

You will not even acknowledge the fact that it was definitively proven the Saudi government was involved in 911.

This is a discussion about Operation Northwoods, and you keep changing the subject. If I ever find myself in a discussion about Saudi government involvement then I'll look into it more.

Quit trying to change the subject.

[deleted]

See. You can't even acknowledge the truth. Its hard to do, I know.

Hey, you're the one who still has yet to admit that you lied about Northwoods and put words in my mouth.

I'm done with you. Have a nice day.

[deleted]

You lied when you said you once believed 911 was a conspiracy because obviously you never did. And if you aren't a liar, which facts caused you to believe 911 was an inside job in the first place?

I have never in my life believed or said I believe that 9/11 was an inside job. You are yet again putting words in my mouth. You are a liar. This is at least the third blatant, flat-out lie you have tried to push on me and the rest of the people here. Stop it. You're only digging yourself a deeper hole.

That's a good habit. Except for 9/11, that one was actually a conspiracy.

You're actively suggesting people stop believing conspiracy theories, as "all have been debunked". You have ulterior motives.

And you're a four day old account that has posted solely in discussions involving veteranstoday, so don't be so quick to call out people for having "ulterior motives".

I just started today and I saw disinformation being posted.

Do you comment on every post available with a new account? No. I choose a topic and when I'm finished I move on. This is no way proves I have ulterior motives. A guy posting twice about how VT lies has ulterior motives. Why not do this to all the major news sources. They all lie as well.

I just started today and I saw disinformation being posted.

It's not really disinformation since the guy was right.

Do you comment on every post available with a new account?

Are you implying I specifically single out new accounts? Even a cursory glance at my history would disprove that.

No. I choose a topic and when I'm finished I move on. This is no way proves I have ulterior motives.

And he doesn't do the same thing? My point is that it's stupid to claim someone has "ulterior motives" when anyone (even you) can be accused of that, using the same level of evidence you used.

A guy posting twice about how VT lies has ulterior motives.

Again, in no way shape of form does that seem to prove any "ulterior motives". And again, one could use the fact that you've only commented on posts regarding this topic, to accuse you of having ulterior motives. Do you actually have ulterior motives? Probably not, but the same goes for the OP.

Why not do this to all the major news sources. They all lie as well.

If a major news source is found to have lied, they usually get called out. I fail to see why veterans today should be immune to that.

AAAAAAAAAAND he's deactivated his account

Debunked, of course, only means has doubt cast upon it.

You would experience similar swaying in a court room listening to the two sides make their case.

Every argument has at least some doubt cast upon it.

That's not actually what debunked means.

expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief). "the magazine that debunks claims of the paranormal" synonyms: explode, deflate, quash, discredit, disprove, contradict, controvert, invalidate, negate; More

I guess you debunked me

If they have to put energy into it debunking it, it's most likely a cover up

How? Sometimes it's just a bad theory that has no actual evidence to support it.

If it's just a bad theory, why waste time disproving it.

a person's overly frequent or vehement attempts to convince others of something have ironically helped to convince others that the opposite is true, by making the person look insincere and defensive.

The fact that conspiracy theories have to be constantly "debunked" shows that ulterior motives are in play. I don't waste time disproving, I spend time substantiating my own theories. Debunking is counter-productive to someone who already knows he is being lied to as the government has proven that time and time again.

1. President Lyndon B. Johnson lying about Gulf of Tonkin.
2. President Richard Nixon lies about the Watergate scandal.
3. President Ronald Reagan lies about the Iran-contra affair.
4. President Bill Clinton lying about his sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky.
5. President George W. Bush lying about WMD in Iraq.
6. President Barack Obama lying about how he will close Guantanamo, and make sure no-one is tortured.
7. George Tenet lying before the 9/11 commission.
8. Condoleezza Rice lies about envisioning hijacked airplanes used to stage terrorist attacks.
9. President George W. Bush lies about seeing the first airplane strike on 9/11.
10. Colin Powell lying about Iraqi mobile anthrax/WMD production capabilities.
11. Vice President Dick Cheney, lying about Iraq Al-Qaeda ties.
12. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper Indisputably Lied to Congress About NSA Surveillance.
13. President Barack Obama lies about domestic spying program.
14. Director of the National Security Agency, Keith B. Alexander, lying about NSA surveillance.

This was passed off as truth, and the it was shown to be lies. Pretty much every major event the government has told a lie to further its agenda. There's no reason to believe this behavior has stopped.

Debunking should start with official narratives and mainstream media information, not conspiracy theories as this guy is suggesting. We are trying to find the real truth of the matter, not mudding the waters with disinformation.

The fact that conspiracy theories have to be constantly "debunked" shows that ulterior motives are in play.

In no way shape of form does it mean that. For example, if someone tries to advocate the ancient astronaut theory to me, I will understandably debunk it, as it's a terrible argument and has no evidence to support it.

President Barack Obama lying about how he will close Guantanamo, and make sure no-one is tortured.

Much easier said than done, it's actually really hard to close the prison.

Pretty much every major event the government has told a lie to further its agenda.

Really? Every single thing? That's a major accusation.

Debunking should start with official narratives and mainstream media information, not conspiracy theories as this guy is suggesting. We are trying to find the real truth of the matter, not mudding the waters with disinformation.

Why can't we try and debunk both? Of course you can try to debunk official narratives, but that doesn't mean your theories should be immune from debunking. If they are clearly flawed, or just bad overall, then it has every right to be debunked.

I just started today and I saw disinformation being posted.

Do you comment on every post available with a new account? No. I choose a topic and when I'm finished I move on. This is no way proves I have ulterior motives. A guy posting twice about how VT lies has ulterior motives. Why not do this to all the major news sources. They all lie as well.