That article does indeed look interesting, thanks. I remember talking about this general issue with Blues in my "9/11: What really happened..." thread, before cutting things off with the goal of mapping out the entire thread first... A lot of religious beliefs don't make sense either, and yet, people have been defending them for millennia. When you challenge people's deeply held beliefs, I can easily see why they'd defend them so vehemently. In the interests of a productive discussion, I think the trick is to try to minimize visceral responses and maximize intellectual ones with the aim of expanding the factual knowledge of the subject under discussion for everyone involved. I've endeavoured to do it for years, with varying degrees of success.
I agree, the thing is that virtually everything I post on the subject of 9/11 challenges their "deeply held beliefs" (if that's what it really is). And if it doesn't, they will try to make sure it sounds like that's what I'm doing, including making up lies about what I post.
I believe that's because I think it's clear that you disagree with the official story, while they agree with it. Thus, everything you say concerning 9/11 here is considered suspect by those in that camp. There are ways around this type of thing, but you can't employ them here because people already know your stance. I can't help but wonder what Danny Jewenko's response would have been had he been told that WTC 7 had also collapsed on 9/11 -before- he was asked his professional opinion on whether it was a controlled demolition. However, once had had rendered his professional opinion, he wasn't so keen on going against it. I imagine he subsequently did a fair amount of research to make sure that he couldn't have been mistaken; if so, his research came to the conclusion that he was right. He never changed his mind, and he died under what I believe were suspicious circumstances: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtbRd6gzFWk I'd just like to point out that there is a difference between someone who is trying to deceive and someone who believes something that isn't true. Can you prove that anyone here has actually -tried- to deceive anyone?
That is the favorite tactic of the right, nothing but repeal instead of better solutions at lower cost.
There are several posts by various posters who claim that I posted things that I never posted, some things that were posted just yesterday. If that isn't clearly deceptive, I don't know what is.
Personally, I suspect sloppy work on the part of the posters, but by all means, cite an example or 2. This reminds me of a recent post from Ron, claiming that Sam had claimed that thermite was involved in the WTC collapses, when he hadn't. My guess is he simply assumed that Sam believed that thermite was involved in the WTC collapses (as opposed to nano thermite). Anyway, I then assumed that Sam had actually stated what Ron was saying he said, only for Sam to point out that he'd never said it to begin with. What happened is all explained in this post: http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=460358&p=1066284755#post1066284755
That's fine but I suspect deliberate lying. I won't point to specific posts, there are several, but a most recent one claims I dismiss eyewitness claims at the Pentagon. I cited an eyewitness claim made by the NTSB at the Pentagon, many times just recently. I often posted that ALL eyewitness claims are critical, not just select ones. It doesn't matter if the claims are true or not, they ALL require extensive investigation, especially considering the event. And we know for a fact that many of these were deliberately ignored (because of absolute documented LIES) and/or deemed not for publication in official reports. They have never supported via quote any of the so-called lies that they claim I made, they just say so.
What's really obvious is that the truth is being suppressed. For example, there are citizen investigators who have researched through government data, the Social Security Death Index, and find strange correlations between the names belonging to all the passengers, but you never hear the mainstream media talking about that. - - - Updated - - - Are you suggesting that critical thinking supports the official story?
Well let's keep it simple if you would like, and please explain to me how office fires burning on the 80th floor could end up causing molten iron in the belly for about 3 months? Impress me, please.
not necessarily; but, that since this is a political issue, political forms of subterfuge may be involved.
When rational thought is supplanted by paranoia, everyone is a suspect. The simplest answer is not that there's a conspiracy to make truthers appear stupid.
Then show us the video of the 757 approaching and striking the Pentagon.... There, can your CHOSEN rear do that for us??
Fair enough. I feel that the debate has shifted here, and I'm happy it has. I have suspected people of deception here and elsewhere in the past. But so long as it remains mere supposition, I am a firm believer in giving them the benefit of the doubt. As to your suspicions regarding the Pentagon issue, I'd need to see the posts myself to give you my take on it.
You've switched subjects on me, laugh . I was talking about the OCT posters here, you're talking about the mainstream media. I agree with you regarding the mainstream media.
Feel free if it's important to you. I'm really not much interested in discussing posters, they are whatever they are, I'm much more interested in discussing 9/11.
Its SOP on the net, the airforce and langley take care of the US. How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations Feb. 24 2014, 5:25 p.m. One of the many pressing stories that remains to be told from the Snowden archive is how western intelligence agencies are attempting to manipulate and control online discourse with extreme tactics of deception and reputation-destruction. Its time to tell a chunk of that story, complete with the relevant documents. Over the last several weeks, I worked with NBC News to publish a series of articles about dirty trick tactics used by GCHQs previously secret unit, JTRIG (Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group). These were based on four classified GCHQ documents presented to the NSA and the other three partners in the English-speaking Five Eyes alliance. Today, we at the Intercept are publishing another new JTRIG document, in full, entitled The Art of Deception: Training for Online Covert Operations. By publishing these stories one by one, our NBC reporting highlighted some of the key, discrete revelations: the monitoring of YouTube and Blogger, the targeting of Anonymous with the very same DDoS attacks they accuse hacktivists of using, the use of honey traps (luring people into compromising situations using sex) and destructive viruses. But, here, I want to focus and elaborate on the overarching point revealed by all of these documents: namely, that these agencies are attempting to control, infiltrate, manipulate, and warp online discourse, and in doing so, are compromising the integrity of the internet itself. Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable. https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/
I can certainly agree with that. That being said, I also believe that a lot of the time, we are conversing with those we disagree with in forums such as this one. If we suspect those we are conversing with of things they are not in fact guilty of, we are not just doing them a disservice, we are doing one to ourselves as well- I think it's hardly surprising that distrust/dislike on one side of a debate can easily spread to the other. This, I believe, is what truly bogs down any discussion, and it's why I'm here, essentially trying to get my own team (you may not consider yourself part of my team, it's the best word I could think of) to be careful about being too casual when it comes to suspecting others of things.
I certainly have a lot of respect for Glen Greenwald. Not sure if you've seen it, but he figured prominently in Citizenfour, the documentary directed by Laura Poitras. Here's a trailer for anyone who hasn't seen it: [video=youtube;XiGwAvd5mvM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiGwAvd5mvM[/video] That being said, it's still not clear just how many operatives JTRIG has, let alone any other operations out there. I think we'd actually be helping out such covert operations by coming to believe that people who have nothing to do with operations of this nature are part of them; we'd be sowing discord without them even needing to get involved.
Yes, it is a political issue, but it is also an historical issue. We have the luxury of 15 years worth of hindsight and knowledge gained.
I have no idea about any of that controlled demolition vs plane strike crap champ. Never claimed to either. I have not inspected the evidence at the crime scene nor am I a structural engineer or a forensic scientist. That said, you sure seem to be a very hostile and devious little man. What's with all the silly name calling? I just find it strange that anyone would spend so much time trying to convince people he seems to despise and disrespect of his point of view. Pretty friggin' creepy if you ask me. Don't worry, I don't expect a logical explanation for your strange behavior because there really is none. Cheers
