Quote:
Originally Posted by TiCkEr  Sure! Truth: a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like.
You clearly missed my point. When I said it was a not conspiracy, I meant it in a sense that it should not be looked upon as a "conspiracy theory" by "conspiracy theorists" with all the dogma that goes along with anything "conspiracy". It is the truth and thus should be addressed as the truth, nothing but. I did not mean it in a grammatically correct sense with definitions and such, who gives a fck really. I'm not disputing what the definition of "conspiracy" is.. all I'm saying is that 9/11 should not be labeled as such. There are tons of bogus conspiracy theories out there, which keep people from opening up to what really happened on 9/11. People think if they believe 9/11 is an inside job, then they also must believe Hilary Killary is a shapeshifting alien from another planet. If it is clearly the truth (which it is) why not call it as such. That was my point. 
TiCkEr |
Very simply: "conspiracy theorists"
tend to have the mindset that human nature is overtly negative, that government exists for clandestine and op/repressive population control, and that the people will not "wake up" from their large-scale slumber.
It's kind of like taking a metaphor for reality. "Evidence" for truth. Internal fears extrapolated onto the external [subjective] "reality". Why don't all conspiracy theorists say the same exact thing if they are speaking "truth"? Why do people say that movies like Zeitgeist are true and factual when their basis for that statement comes from a personal (subjective) interpretation of the evidence presented [clearly with an agenda, because movies like that are not meant to serve as mere entertainment (or are they?)]?
You know, an optimistic view of mankind and existence can be mapped onto the subjective reality as well.
