"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley Some sig-line statement that I want to elaborate on, this accusation could be leveled at any individual who may hold any position at all on the matter, but to accuse an entire group, is too much. BTW: there really isn't any "truth movement" there are individuals who subscribe to specific points of view, but there isn't any unification under a leader here, its much more like a herd of cats.
when will it be? that is when will the people who desire peace become as organized as the warmongers?
If a group evinces groupthink and parrots group think memes, it deserves the label. Conspiracy theorists may be individuals, but they generally behave in similar ways. Another truther on here vehemently objects to the label 'truther', while posting endless amounts of material copied from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (how's that for irony?). Groupthink doesn't need a leader, just dogma, and 9/11 truth has that is spades. Anyway, you're obviously a sock (and I know who), and your logic is specious and flawed. 9/11 truth aren't interested in resolving an issue in the debate arena-that much is patently clear, so why argue that which is confirmed on here daily? Sounds like butthurt more than a valid argument.
Conspiracy theories are a religion. Its followers believe it based on faith and willingness, rather than evidence, and follow its leaders unquestionably. If you disagree with their faith, you are a heretic. If you are in the religion and change your mind, you are excommunicated and accused on being a fraud and a liar. Within this religion there is a smaller group of fanatics, who would be happy if all who go against their religion should be taken to trial, and killed. Believe me, I have received many such messages from these fanatics on my youtube channel. Conspiracy theories are a cult.
This may sway those viewers who've never seen Jay Windley debate a truther but anyone who sees it will see that he's just a paid sophist. I debated him a few times. He ducks issues that are too clear to obfuscate in order not to discredit himself. (post #814 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8177627#post8177627 He tried to obfuscate this issue and just looked silly. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8135606&postcount=7907 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8144391&postcount=7990 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=251326 He looked pretty silly here. http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?87594-Chinese-space-walk-conspiracy/page2& Read posts #5 and #8 of this page. https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=125628 I don't know how to eliminate the smilies. That one above isn't mine. I hit the parenthesis key ) and a smilie appeared instead. * http://www.clavius.org/about.html
Here's a relevant article. http://www.globalresearch.ca/weapon...ory-disinformation-agents-and-the-cia/5524552 I wish I could remember who I heard say this but a guy who maintained that 9/11 was an inside job called himself a conspiracy analyist. There's nothing wrong with analyzing a theory before rejecting it. https://www.google.es/#q=conspiracy+theories+that+turned+out+to+be+true A lot of conspiracy theories turn out to be true but some are silly theories started by the government to make the real ones look bad. Here are some conspiracy theories on which I've started threads. http://well-temperedforum.groupee.net/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9130004433/m/6371082656/p/1
No sir, the cult is following greedy leaders who mislead the country into fraudulent wars based upon false flag operations. The cult in this case is renewed and refreshed at least every year on the anniversary date, with a dose here and there added throughout the year. Invoke 911, and the cult follows. But you're are partially correct with your terminology--those who believe in the official conspiracy theory are very much a cult, thoroughly and hopelessly indoctrinated.
Did you ever try to reason through the absurdity and ridiculous nature of controlled demolition and missiles at the Pentagon? We all know truthers have an irrational hatred of the government and tend to view this collective as some form of 'hive animal', but this is not enough to convince rational individuals of the validity of such insane tales as presented by 9/11 truth (who could forget Gage's folly with the two boxes?). For stories of controlled demolition and missiles to be taken seriously, 9/11 truth needs to focus upon the problems in logic with these tales. You can post memes, rants and libel all day, but until the problems with these ludicrous truther tales are resolved, they will remain on the fringe for a very good reason. 9/11 truth cannot prove its libel, nor its irrational claims, and that is why truthers will always be relegated alongside Chemtrailers, Holocaust Deniers, Apollo Hoaxers and Sandy Hook truther scum etc. Why is it that 9/11 truth are afraid to address the problems with their stories? Is it because they will be exposed as lies? There is a lack of physical evidence to support truther claims, and all their tales fail in logic (controlled demolition especially), so how do you expect anyone with an education to fall for such a scam when it has these faults? Seriously? Why won't any of you address the problems? It's not enough to libel the NIST all day, to distort the evidence and post nebulous rants such as yours that say nothing. 9/11 truth needs to lift its game if it ever wants to be taken seriously, because there are people out there with a brain who don't fall for memes and poor logic. Owing to the fact that 9/11 truth started out in contempt of its audience, it has alienated many, and that is the movement's own fault, because it cannot produce a coherent alterative that doesn't require the suspension of logic.
Why is it that you and others who defend that lame government story are unwilling to address the problems with that story? Denying facts is not really an adult debate tactic. Cognitive dissonance is not a legit debate tactic, it is a sign of insecurity.
Don't expect any of them to ever do that, it's untouchable. Defending the OCT nearly daily and the storytellers and attacking anyone and everyone who contradicts/questions the OCT, often using name calling and ridicule is their passion.
I have found that there is a bit of give in many OCT supporters. It can be hard to see, however, because they tend to shy away from areas of the OCT where they have doubts. I suggest you try something- take a look at the posts of people who disbelieve or question the OCT, and look for the parts of those posts that are -not- responded to, or the parts of posts that are not responded to. That's where you'll find the doubts.
I posted an entire thread that's mostly untouched by OCT defenders, at least in terms of anything that could be considered a reasonable, detailed and fully supported argument. Samples from one OCT defender who tried in his typical way: More false claims against the NIST claiming fraud attacking the credibility of the NIST, which it fails to do argument from incredulity just laughable failed crank dead horse Utter Bullcrap etc. Not one thing of any substance in an entire thread filled with intricate technical detail, just what I claim they do. So perhaps you're right, they agree with the major premise by default, that NIST's investigation and resulting report is a scam.
yep governments conspire, then lie and the unfortunate citizenry is left to guess. - - - Updated - - - no but I have tried to argue with lunatics that look at fuzzy puffs of dust and see airplanes.
I think it's clear they disagree with your major premise, but I think that's to be expected- NIST is an organization funded by the Department of Commerce. In other words, it's a government funded agency, with close ties to the corporate world. If they agreed with your premise, it'd only be a hop, skip and a jump away from saying that the official story is a scam, which would be a direct contradiction of what OCTers believe. I haven't actually read much of this thread of yours, but I imagine what OCTers haven't fully examined is the great many points that support your major premise. I must say one thing at this point, however- I think the title of your thread isn't helpful in a discussion- it posits something that is close to saying "The official story is a scam", which I think sets the stage for OCTers to respond more on a visceral level then an intellectual one. To be fair, your thread is hardly unique in this regard- it seems that most titles in this forum are clearly on one side of the fence or the other. I personally tend to put out titles that are relatively neutral- you and others actually contributed greatly to one I started back in 2013, 9/11: What really happened on that day? >>MOD WARNING<<, though clearly things have gotten fairly heated in there over the years if the "Mod Warning" in the title is any indication. Although I didn't participate in a great deal of it, I have been trying to catch up on it to some extent, as it offers a good deal of history as to what's been discussed here during the past 6 months or so. I've mapped out a bit over 600 messages onto a thread tree, over 400 to go -.-... It's because I haven't yet completed mapping out that thread that I have refrained from responding to anything in it for some time now; if I respond to more posts in there right now, I fear that I'd never catch up . Moreover, once I have fully mapped out a thread, I can see what posts addressed to me I haven't yet responded to. I've found this is useful in previous threads I've participated in, as it tends to avoid claims that I'm ignoring posters, when the truth is I simply missed one or more of their post(s). It also makes it possible to find out what posts on my side of the fence were never responded to, as this may offer clues as to points that they themselves are unsure about.
Of course, I knew that before I started the thread. I didn't post it for them actually, I posted it for those who actually care. They can of course post their arguments if they don't agree but so far, nothing of any substance. If they did, I would use what they post to pick out what I find worth discussing. So does just about every thread in this section of the forum. Like I said, i don't post the facts for those who don't want to hear them. I'm much more interested in discussing 9/11 with genuine posters anyway, they are not what I would consider genuine.
Show me where I was unwilling to address the problems with that story? I haven't heard of any that can't be debunked. YOU didn't address any of the truther failings in my post and now you want to change the subject? FO Yeah, and idiotic psychological rhetoric spewed by an individual that wrote off any source material at the outset is hardly valid. Don't bother me with your memes and musings. They're always ridiculous.
And yet you spend a great deal of time trying to discredit and dispute everything he posts. Seems pretty strange to me. If I believed that those who question the OCT were nothing more that tin foil hatters, I wouldn't spend any more time on the than I would with guys who still think Elvis is alive, which is no time at all. You seem to have made a career out of studying and defending the governments position on 9-11. What a waste of a life.
You know, it's moments like this that really remind me of something- without opposition, this forum would be far too dull. I state that from either side of the fence, whether it's the OCT side or the side that disagrees with it. I think it's a given that most people on either side simply don't look at the arguments of those who are on their side of the fence nearly as much as the arguments on the other side. I think this makes sense to a large degree- why go over stuff you are fairly sure you already agree with anyway? The trick, in my view, is to get the -other- side to care about one's arguments. It can be quite the task sometimes. I don't know whether they are all genuine or not, but for me, the opposition is really the lifeblood of the argument. Without them, it's just preaching to the choir. I just don't find it all that interesting. For the record though, Blues and especially Rob seem genuine to me. Reading my "9/11: What really happened..." thread, I saw that Rob even posted the union he used to work for (doing pile drivers or something). I've met people like this before- Tony Szamboti being the most obvious (if one doesn't know who he is, one really doesn't know much about the 9/11 Truth movement), and I've essentially outed my true identity more then once (including here atleast once), but also one person on the official story side of 9/11; he posted enough identifying information about himself that I found it was relatively easy to actually find his digital presence online. I believe it was his myspace page (clearly, he was not keeping up with the times ). I let him know I'd 'found' him and sent him a link to his own myspace page, which he confirmed, but I didn't reveal the details to anyone else; I know that this type of thing could be construed in the wrong way. I just wanted to see if I could find his digital identity and assure myself that he was real and not just a made up identity. I definitely didn't endeavour in hacking of any kind, just a google search and clicking on links from there. I can easily imagine that even this could be construed as passing a line in etiquette, but I've heard that women do this type of thing fairly often when it comes to dates (for security reasons I imagine), and while this isn't exactly the same thing, I think it's close enough. That being said, I've never done this type of thing again; I don't want to get into personal issues with people. In the end, arguments speak for themselves, regardless of whether identities are made up or not. Like Robert, he was also a pilot (I believe he was a former pilot) and he really liked talking about his career, to the point that when I googled for his nickname in the force, it was pretty easy to find, along with all the corroboration one would need. I frequently lament the fact that we tend to only know each other through our posts. I understand the reasoning behind wanting one's privacy, but it can also foster distrust where there shouldn't be any. People don't need to be shills to believe things that aren't true, and the more we know about each other, the easier it is to discern the genuineness of each other's beliefs.
Well you're right to a degree. And I kind of noted that when I said I use them to pick out issues they bring up as a point of discussion. But there's always some new discovery or article that comes out that those who believe the OCT should learn about. If they're interested in new information, that is. And a forum such as this one is a good place to disseminate that kind of information and it can be a new point of discussion. I'm here to learn about anything that I didn't know before about 9/11 and to share information, including passing on information that others may not know about. For example, just today I found an article of interest that I'd like to pass on that you might find interesting as well: How Did Some Experts and Emergency Responders Know the Twin Towers Were Going to Collapse on 9/11? http://911blogger.com/news/2016-06-...ders-know-twin-towers-were-going-collapse-911 I guess it's remotely possible that some posters who defend the OCT nearly daily as if it were a religious belief are genuine, I just have a difficult time believing that to be the case.
