Merged 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[A W Smith]

It would be naive to assume that the government and it's agencies does not keep a sharp eye open to monitor potential negative developements (for them) on forums in general. For that reason we can be fairly certain that some of those agents roam the jref and most other forums. Have a look at some of the attached links that point this up.
http://www.sheilacasey.com/2009/01/paid-blog-attack-armies-flood-blogs-with-comments.html article blog warriors
http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1056648.html Other bloggers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awy8cmcuBlk&feature=related video on cointelpro

Seven years bob/bill/smartpants and the count of "potential negative developments" numbers ZERO. Try again epic fail-master.

 

[johnny karate]

johnny karate, Giant Invisible Mechanical Smoke Generator Deception Department, reporting for duty.

 

[beachnut]

It would be naive to assume that the government and it's agencies does not keep a sharp eye open to monitor potential negative developements (for them) on forums in general. For that reason we can be fairly certain that some of those agents roam the jref and most other forums. Have a look at some of the attached links that point this up.
http://www.sheilacasey.com/2009/01/paid-blog-attack-armies-flood-blogs-with-comments.html article blog warriors
http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1056648.html Other bloggers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awy8cmcuBlk&feature=related video on cointelpro

This has to be in the running for the dumbest statement for today!

How paranoid are you? Good job making a silly post.
You are the fine young mind 911Truth needs.

I like the video, “how to destroy 911Truth”. Bill posts like yours are how the stillborn 911Truth was destroyed and clearly took it place as the place for one stop shopping for all your 911 delusion needs.

 

[dtugg]

It would be naive to assume that the government and it's agencies does not keep a sharp eye open to monitor potential negative developements (for them) on forums in general. For that reason we can be fairly certain that some of those agents roam the jref and most other forums. Have a look at some of the attached links that point this up.
http://www.sheilacasey.com/2009/01/paid-blog-attack-armies-flood-blogs-with-comments.html article blog warriors
http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1056648.html Other bloggers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awy8cmcuBlk&feature=related video on cointelpro

Well you caught me bill. I am an NWO agent assigned to monitor potential negative developments on this forum. You are one of those potential negative developments. You can expect to be disappeared soon.

 

[twinstead]

Ah. Cointelpro rears its ugly head again.

You know what, bill smith? Do you know what cointellpro really is? Well, most truthers would consider YOU to be cointelpro. You see, anybody who comes out with ludicrous theories (smoke generators???) that make the truth movement look like a bunch of raving idiots just HAS to be cointelpro. No planers, death rayers, missilers, and now smoke generatorers can only be cointelpro.

Real truthers HATE people like you.

 

[T.A.M.]

Well you caught me bill. I am an NWO agent assigned to monitor potential negative developments on this forum. You are one of those potential negative developments. You can expect to be disappeared soon.

ixnay, on the intelprocay!

Your pink slip is in the mail.

TAM

 

[bill smith]

I guess government blog-warriors would be pretty intelligent. I wondered if any show up in response to this post. Then I thought 'No'....'that would be giving themselves away too easily' But I suppose you guys could be pulling a double bluff.

 

[T.A.M.]

it is a triple bluff bill.

Really, I am not cointelpro...I promise.

TAM

 

[bill smith]

Hey TAM....this is a general discussion thread it says. Does that mean anything goes as regards subject material ?

 

[beachnut]

Hey TAM....this is a general discussion thread it says. Does that mean anything goes as regards subject material ?

It is general discussion about the lack of evidence 911Truth has.

It is general discussion on how stupid the ideas of 911Truth are.

It is general discussion about the dirt dumb ideas 911Truth comes up with.

It is a place to put all the general 911 crazy conspiracy ideas and why they are doltish. You know, like the ideas you have on 911.

911 ideas you can apply skeptical thought to.
So far your ideas seem to be founded on hearsay, lies and fantasies concerning 911.

911Truth think people are planted by the government to blog with them due to their lack of knowledge and paranoid minds? Gee, if they had a clue they would not spew the dirt dumb ideas of 911Truth.

 

[T.A.M.]

Hey TAM....this is a general discussion thread it says. Does that mean anything goes as regards subject material ?

We try to keep it somewhat related to the main topic of the subforum, but occasionally, as you can tell from reading through, we digress.

Why do you ask?

TAM

 

[bill smith]

It is general discussion about the lack of evidence 911Truth has.

It is general discussion on how stupid the ideas of 911Truth are.

It is general discussion about the dirt dumb ideas 911Truth comes up with.

It is a place to put all the general 911 crazy conspiracy ideas and why they are doltish. You know, like the ideas you have on 911.

911 ideas you can apply skeptical thought to.
So far your ideas seem to be founded on hearsay, lies and fantasies concerning 911.

911Truth think people are planted by the government to blog with them due to their lack of knowledge and paranoid minds? Gee, if they had a clue they would not spew the dirt dumb ideas of 911Truth.

Most of the stuff I have is based on observation and logic. If you think it is ridiculous then it is up to you to make a solid case against it, or ignore it or whatever you want. All I want to know is if I can talk about any 9/11 subject here and have some latitude . I sometimes feel like my hands are tied on the tightly moderated threads.

 

[bill smith]

We try to keep it somewhat related to the main topic of the subforum, but occasionally, as you can tell from reading through, we digress.

Why do you ask?

TAM

Because I would like to throw a few bits and pieces into the ring on a fairly wide variety of 9/11 subjects.

 

[A W Smith]

Because I would like to throw a few bits and pieces into the ring on a fairly wide variety of 9/11 subjects.

Shotgun argumentation. Sorry. you lose
http://discuss.ilw.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/902603441/m/50510526

"Shotgun argumentation" is a methaphor from real life: It's much easier to hunt a rabbit with a shotgun than with a rifle. This is because a rifle only fires one bullet and there's a high probability of a miss. A shotgun, however, fires tens or even hundreds of small pellets, and the probability of at least one of them hitting the rabbit is quite high.

Shotgun argumentation has the same basic idea: The more small arguments or "evidence" you present in favor of some claim, the higher the probability that someone will believe you regarldess of how ridiculous those arguments are. There are two reasons for this:

Firstly, just the sheer amount of arguments or "evidence" may be enough to convince someone that something strange is going on. The idea is basically: "There is this much evidence against the official story, there must be something wrong with it." One or two pieces of "evidence" may not be enough to convince anyone, but collect a set of a couple of hundreds of pieces of "evidence" and it immediately starts being more believable.

Of course the fallacy here is that the amount of "evidence" is in no way proof of anything. The vast majority, and usually all of this "evidence" is easily explainable and just patently false. There may be a few points which may be more difficult to explain, but they alone wouldn't be so convincing.

Secondly, and more closely related to the shotgun methapor: The more arguments or individual pieces of "evidence" you have, the higher the probability that at least some of them will convince someone. Someone might not get convinced by most of the arguments, but among them there may be one or a few which sounds so plausible to him that he is then convinced. Thus one or a few of the "pellets" hit the "rabbit" and killed it: Mission accomplished.

I have a concrete example of this: I had a friend who is academically educated, a MSc, and doing research work (relating to computer science) at a university. He is rational, intelligent and well-educated.

Yet still this person, at least some years ago, completely believed the Moon hoax theory. Why? He said to me quite explicitly that there was one thing that convinced him: The flag moving after it had been planted on the ground.

One of the pellets had hit the rabbit and killed it. The shotgun argumentation had been successful.

If even highly-educated academic people can fall for such "evidence" (which is easily explained), how more easily are more "regular" people going to believe the sheer amount of them? Sadly, quite a lot more easily.

Most conspiracy theorists continue to present the same old tired arguments which are very easy to prove wrong. They need all those arguments, no matter how ridiculous, for their shotgun argumentation tactics to work.

 

[bill smith]

Shotgun argumentation. Sorry. you lose

Very interesting. It's almost like an instruction manual.

 

[T.A.M.]

Because I would like to throw a few bits and pieces into the ring on a fairly wide variety of 9/11 subjects.

This is the place, but...

If you throw out too many diverse subjects all at once, some of them may get lost in the responses.

As well, if they are covered by a thread already in existence, somewhere in the hundreds of threads we have here, better to do a search (JREF engine or Google) and post them there.

TAM

 

[dtugg]

Most of the stuff I have is based on observation and logic.

I laughed out loud. Or maybe I just said that to coverup the fact that you are a serious problem for us. Or maybe I really am laughing in your face. Or maybe you really are a problem and I am trying to confuse you. I guess you'll never know...at least until you get disappeared.

 

[bill smith]

This is the place, but...

If you throw out too many diverse subjects all at once, some of them may get lost in the responses.

As well, if they are covered by a thread already in existence, somewhere in the hundreds of threads we have here, better to do a search (JREF engine or Google) and post them there.

TAM

Perfect. Now I am gettng the hang of it. A wide open thread for free flowing ideas and discussion and dedicated threads for the fine detail. Thanks

 

[T.A.M.]

np...

just keep in mind, that there may be many posts in between yours and a response to yours, as many subjects can trickle through here at once.

TAM

 

[bill smith]

I laughed out loud. Or maybe I just said that to coverup the fact that you are a serious problem for us. Or maybe I really am laughing in your face. Or maybe you really are a problem and I am trying to confuse you. I guess you'll never know...at least until you get disappeared.

Nah....you get suicided these days. lol