Creative Speculation
In reply to the discussion: What is the thing about 911 being a inside job that is the hardest to explain away? [View all]Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Your example would be more along the lines of "guilt by association."
The problem with 9/11 CTs isn't that they're CTs in and of themselves, its that there is ZERO evidence that any 1 of the CTs prevails over the others. You can't just say, "The official story is false." You have to say, "we have proof that X happened."
Yet, nobody can define X. There are so many competing theories that negate each other and each proponent of a CT says his CT prevails over its competitors. We don't need a CT to explain what happened to Hiroshima in 1945, the evidence is overwhelming. Likewise, if a suitcase nuke or sci-fi weapon or whatever were the cause the CTers would be converging on a common theory.
But they aren't. Heck, CTers can't even decide between whether Bush did it himself or ignored warnings of a foreign threat. If so fundamental an issue as that cannot be decided how do you hope to provide a body of argument that says, "This, not that."? People can feel free to stop lobbing "evidence" at me at any time. They should now tell me why their theory takes primacy over the others.
A good theory must also be falsifiable. If every counter point is met by, "That's just the Shadowy Cabal of Amalgamated Tyranny hiding/disinforming/muddying the evidence" then there is no discussion of fact, just rationalization.