The problem, I feel, is that even we - the conspiracy nuts - call them "conspiracy theories". That's already become shorthand for "crazy idea". We might get more traction if we deliberately, as a group, started to refer to our ideas as "alternative histories" or some other moniker that doesn't immediately translate as "nutjob speaking" to lay people. Suggestions welcome.

'alternative history' implies that the other stories hold water, when they don't. We're not an alternative reality, we're reality. The problem with the word 'conspiracy' is that it's a non group of ideas - anyone can join in the fun and come up with a conspiracy theory. We're like anonymous in that sense.

Science has due protocol for new theories, and they are published after peer review. The alternative history, or 'free thought' community need to unite under one voice AND one strict policy for offering their conclusions.

This removes the charge that 'conspiracy theorists say' because, unless the organised body said it, we didn't actually say it. Everything else is just useless information anarchy.

We need to get official on their pathetic asses.

Conspiracy theories are alternative histories until they become mainstream. But my point is that the name "conspiracy theories" immediately results in our points being dismissed. Any other name would be better.

Labeling is critical to communication. You hear "Republican" and you think (if you're American) of a right wing, conservative politician. In my country (Ireland), the term "Republican" means a violent terrorist. Naming is very important. If we use a name that already means "nutjob theory" to people who hear it then we're just shooting ourselves in the foot.

Try this on for size:

Conspiracy buff.

You like to know what they're saying, but it still presents an acceptable enough you, that you're not a loonie. d:D

Truth.

Bush was like the man in the closet saying ' don't look in the closet there's no one in here' .

Should you then look in the closet?

You'd be a fool not to.

It seems very out of place in that moment in time - since there weren't yet any conspiracy theories

I remember very well when he made that statement a little less than a month after the operation, and there where already many theories regarding Sept 11 in full force. As a matter of fact, there were many (myself included) who knew from the moment the planes struck that there was no way it would have been allowed to happen without high level complicity, and we were all pretty vocal about it online.

NORAD was unusually prepared on 9/11, because it was conducting a week-long semiannual exercise called Vigilant Guardian.

On 9/11, North American Aerospace Defense Command's (Norad) Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) was fully staffed, its key officers and enlisted supervisors already manning the operations center "battle cab." -Aviation Week

I think those who noticed this amazing "coincidence" knew from Sept 11th on that something was rotten in Denmark, and we bombarded the web, message forums, and usenet making a hell of a spectacle. This is why Bush said what he said to the UN, because the people were starting to see through his bullshit way earlier that he and his bosses had expected.

Just wanted to point that out- that the "theories" have existed since the moment it happened.

I understand what you are saying... that there were suspicious circumstances and questions were being asked (I was even asking them, and I was, at the time, just an avid internet gaming junkie -- in fact, I knew the US would be going back to Iraq when Dubya won the primary - six months before the election, and over a year before 9/11).

That having been said, I think this quote - this statement .. at this particular place and time (the President's first appearance before the UN immediately following The Event).... is just, in and of itself, suspicious. Superconducter nailed it with his analogy.

Hmm, very interesting theory! If you are correct in your thought that Bush was using actually reverse psychology to get people to look into the matter, one could interpret it as a blackmail situation. The powers that be basically said to him "We are doing this, and there is nothing you can do about it. If you don't go along with our plan, we will expose you and your family for your past crimes. Your father, being a high ranking CIA official at the time of the Kennedy assassination will be exposed as being complicit, and perhaps exposed as not being who he says he is, your mother as well, and your grandfather will be exposed as a financier of Hitler and the Third Reich".

If accurate, there can really be only be one explanation of who those "powers that be" that were blackmailing Bush really are, and who really perpetrated 9/11.

I will admit, I never really thought of it that way before. Excellent post!

If you are correct in your thought that Bush was using actually reverse psychology

I certainly wouldn't give Bush credit for it. That's quite a stretch, considering I don't think the man's IQ is above moron. However, I do think it was a premeditated thing... by whoever wrote the speech (Rove with his giant "Pinky and the Brain" cranium, perhaps?).

9/11 was a false flag operation and everybody knows it.

We'd all hope that "everyone knows it" but as we've seen, hardly anyone "knows" it. In fact, most people think the opposite.

I'm of the opinion that this is the message (distributed by mainstream media outlets, and reinforced by sockpuppets in various forums) that they want people to believe; when, in actuality, most people know the truth - i.e., that the world has been lied to (over and over and over again) in order to protect the vested interests of the "owners" of everything (i.e., the banksters).

WTC Building 7 is the lynch pin that will blow this entire thing into the open.

I think we should call ourselves "People who want the truth" or "Patriots"

I don't think it's so much a matter of "renaming", as it is a matter of "re-branding". Although I do like the notion of elevating this to the level of patriotism.

Patriots Against The Ridiculous Insinuations Of Terrorism Stories

http://911review.org/brad.com/lederman/Levy_Giuliani.html

[deleted]

I saw it. Twice. And, in the end, he was vindicated. (sorry for the spoiler, folks)

"The First Known Accomplice?". Get ready for an intense, surreal, and disturbing up-close personal experience with the famous taxicab driver Lloyde England who claims the windshield of his cab was speared by a light pole that was allegedly hit by the plane that allegedly hit the Pentagon on 9/11. The physical impossibility of Lloyde's story is exposed as CIT deconstructs the details and takes a road trip with Lloyde to physically examine the actual cab that he still has preserved under a tarp on his 30 acres of woods in rural Virginia. In light of the now proven approach of the plane on the north side of the former Citgo gas station, proving it was nowhere near the downed light poles, it has become painfully clear why Lloyde's story doesn't add up.

Anyone who objects to being lied to by the government, rather than being labeled a "patriotic protester", has been pre-defined as "crazy".

This is what's known as a false premise. Unless you can demonstrate proof of your claim?

No, it's not. And you really suck at fallacy finding.

This is called a partially founded conclusion. It isn't a premise at all.... the premise is the speech George Bush gave to the United Nation, you witless dolt.

So you can prove that the reason people think you're crazy is only because you question the government then? Great! Let's see it...

Like I said. You're not very good at this thing, eh?

It's a partially-founded conclusion. My presentation is in the Original Post (above). You, however, are here playing a pathetic game of feebly attempting to discredit. But you suck at it so bad, that it's backfiring in your face.

Basically,... I don't have to prove squat, troll (and yes, I'm aware that you hang out in r/conspiratard). Just because this account is new does not mean I was born yesterday. Go away now, you were boring months ago.

So you make a point, which I quoted, and then can't back it up? What was the point of mentioning the speech then?

I viewed what I quoted as a premise for discussing the rest of the post, since this is where you ended:

Ignore the labels and seek the truth for yourself. You are not alone in seeking truth and you are not "crazy" for disbelieving lies - especially lies as big as the 9/11 Commission Report.

...which seemingly has nothing directly to do with the speech, and more to do with the part that I originally quoted.

So you make a point, which I quoted, and then can't back it up?

This is false, and you know it. You are simply trolling. Everyone here knows that, as well.

I'm willing to play this little game with you for one (and only one) reason... to keep you occupied... so that maybe you'll leave others alone.

Ready? Go.

This is false, and you know it.

Yet here we are, with you not substantiating your claim, several posts deep into the thread.

to keep you occupied...

Yep, one post every ten minutes...you're keeping me so busy right now.

As I have repeatedly asserted, my claim is substantiated in the original post. You've done nothing but troll here.

As for how frequently you post or how quickly I respond, it doesn't really matter. Because each moment that you spend responding to me is a moment you've not harassed someone else.

Wanna keep score? (Or are you afraid to see how badly you're losing?)

[deleted]

I tried that with several other accounts to no avail. Trolls must be called out and exposed or they win. It happens every day on reddit (where there is no moral high ground). I made my choice (a willingness to accept the fact that usernames and karma are irrelevant) and stand by it - I refuse to accept the role of "downtrodden".... to just "roll over and take it" when the trolls and bury brigades make their random appearances to discredit Truth.

I would offer you some background for my unique perspective on this, but inevitably someone would show up just for the sake of characterizing me, based on that info. In summary, however, I learned (the hard way) that "simply accepting that evil exists" and ignoring it (in the hope that it will go away) is lame and stupid. No one should be taught to do that. The true moral high ground is to expose lies, liars, and trolls for what they are, and to refuse to permit their abuse - not to simply "accept it".

Although I once appreciated your naive idealistic method, I no longer do... because it led me to ruin. I allowed corrupt government officials to walk all over me... to deprive me of my rights... and to reduce me to a mere shell of a man. It wasn't until I decided to defy abusiveness that I truly came to understand that I have value... and I can be of value to others.

Rose colored glasses make for pretty speeches, but... in the end, they bring about the demise of the naive.

Thanks for the advice. But... I'm close enough to death's door now to understand that my life can either be meaningful or meaningless. I choose the former.

Thank you for taking the time (and concern) to comment here, but... rolling over and taking it (in the poop shoot) isn't my preferred method of dealing with oppressors.

[deleted]

If TheRealHortnon provides just one example of a person objecting to the lies of government and he wasn't called crazy

That is anathema to TheRealHortnon's MO. He would never do that.

If you are going to side with the 9/11 "Truthers" you have already ceded the moral high ground.

my claim is substantiated in the original post

Show me, because I don't see it.

Wanna keep score?

Let's see how you're scoring, because I need a good laugh

Again, I've already explained this. You are a known troll. Anyone who's spent more than a few weeks in this subreddit knows this. The scorekeeping works like this.

I have nothing better to do, so I entertain trolls. You are a troll. I entertain you. You, being oblivious to the truth of this situation, are, therefore, losing.

Next question...

Charlie Sheen is that you?

Are you conceding that I'm #WINNING!?

In the same way that Sheen is, sure.

Hey there, Hortnon... I have a question for you.

How many accounts do you have on reddit? I've never hidden the fact that I use multiple accounts. This one is my "conspiracy" account. I have others that I use for other purposes. This is the one I use to expose corruption and trolls. Another question...

Why are you so stupid?

Only one account. Only one post every 10 min remember?

Well, I give you my word of honor (I was a Boy Scout once, and this is serious to me)...

This is not one of my accounts. In fact, I didn't even know someone had created it (about an hour ago) until I saw their post appear in r/conspiracy.

However, I do think it's quite hilarious that someone (besides me) is now taking you to task.

I think your life just got fun. (NOT)

taking you to task.

I guess. If you count going crazy or reposting a submission that's been posted and discussed ad nauseum as taking me to task.

crazy

I rest my case (see the original post under which we're currently commenting).

Game over.

EDIT: I could, comfortably, delete this account now - as I have done with several before, once I achieve a relevant objective. However, I think I may hang on to this one for a while. It has a nice ring to the username. And it hasn't accumulated as many downvotes as I thought it would when I created it. (Surprisingly, I'm getting ever closer to that precious 300 comment karma threshold... which would allow me to spam... not that I would... but I know that's the bar to make).

*sigh* Ain't life full of surprises... I think I'll just savor this moment for a few hours before making my final decision on this matter. You know... to give you a chance to make a further fool of yourself and stuff.

Off to work now... will be back later to pick up where we left off.

I guess I don't understand what you accomplished. Maybe you could help me out?

I'm one of Hortnon's sock puppets.

Charlie Sheen is that you?