Pia Kahn wrote:You claim that these are "undisputed broken myths"? I see lots of disputes raging over these myths. If you had looked closely into the 9/11 myth and actually studied the forensic evidence, then you would probably think differently. Thus, what you consider to be outrageous may not be outrageous once you have done your research. I originally thought it would be outrageous to claim that the JFK-assassination was a conspiracy including the CIA. Now, I find it outrageous to believe that the CIA was not involved in the JFK assassination.
It seems you have a very hard time to define who is really a conspiracy theorist because the JFK assassination theories, golf of tonkin and WMD unbelievers were all regarded as insane conspiracy theorists, in particular the holocaust unbelievers are thought to be insane.
Since there is no clear distinction line, I don't think it makes sense not to talk to these people. It's a clear strategic mistake to exclude them. They are easy targets and increasing the number of unbelievers increases the momentum for your cause.
I think I just did not explain my case properly..
- I distinguished war/political/economic conspiracies from science and whack job ones (chem trails etc)
- I acknowledged that conspiracy was a "normal" part of war.
- The tactic is to group real war conspiracies in with the whack job to dismiss them in thee cases as well
- I merely declined to input on 9/11
- The distinction line in my view is "evidence?"
- KEY: those flat earth conspiracists and those who are say questioning some aspect of Syrian gassings today (investigating something with a pretext to be false) both WILL be present on the fact, history, war sites anyhow in large numbers. I do not think we should post there directly, hence we will be universally relegated as "conspiracists".
^If you still do not agree, we'll just agree to disagree.