CIA threatens "Press for Truth" producers over release of new documentary

twinstead said:
The religious zealot analogy by triterope above stands, shure. Neither of those books supports '9-11 was an inside job'.
Click to expand...

Furthermore, The Eleventh Day openly mocks the 9-11 Truth movement, calling it "preaching to the gullible" and "too silly to address", among other things. It's not a book I'd be leaning on if I were them.

But hey, that's no obstacle. Shure has just informed us that "the information in this thread has nothing to do with 9-11 Truth." Did anyone else miss that little detail? Because I sure did. This forum is called "9/11 Conspiracy Theories", this thread is full of material generally associated with 9-11 Truth, and has been for 10 months and 680 posts now. I'd ask the moderators to move this thread to a more appropriate forum, but I have no idea which one that would be.

"9-11 Truth" has always been a catch-all term for a wide range of viewpoints. But apparently that definition is now so malleable that it doesn't even include itself. This gives 9-11 Truth a powerful rhetorical tactic: deny that the discussion is about 9-11 Truth. It lets them distance themselves from themselves.

Then again, their opponents might feel there's no need to engage people who have such little clarity about who they are or what they believe.
 
Triterope said:
"9-11 Truth" has always been a catch-all term for a wide range of viewpoints. But apparently that definition is now so malleable that it doesn't even include itself. This gives 9-11 Truth a powerful rhetorical tactic: deny that the discussion is about 9-11 Truth. It lets them distance themselves from themselves.

Then again, their opponents might feel there's no need to engage people who have such little clarity about who they are or what they believe.
Click to expand...

Not sure if you recall, but we had a hundreds-of-posts-long discussion with femr2 about LIHOP being an impossibly vague acronym because the I stands for "it." So even though he openly, in writing, identified himself as "firmly in the LIHOP camp" or something like that, he wasn't really a truther. I mean, "it" could be anything, right? The semantic distractions are a feature, not a bug.
 
carlitos said:
We had a hundreds-of-posts-long discussion with femr2 about LIHOP being an impossibly vague acronym because the I stands for "it." So even though he openly, in writing, identified himself as "firmly in the LIHOP camp" or something like that, he wasn't really a truther. I mean, "it" could be anything, right? The semantic distractions are a feature, not a bug.
Click to expand...

I don't remember that particular thread, since I do tend to come and go. But that attitude doesn't surprise me in the least. And it reveals how far these people have to retreat just to have something 9-11 related to argue about.

As does this thread. Paloalto and the Press For Truth people are combing award-winning "official story" books for factoids and repackaging them as evidence of... uh... well, something, apparently. But they sure don't buy that official story!
 
In the interests of accuracy, I had it backwards. The thread - What does M.I.H.O.P. mean? argued whether MIHOP = "inside job," and the pedantry ensued. My mistake. It's suppose it's possible that the other thing happened too, though.
 
carlitos said:
In the interests of accuracy, I had it backwards. The thread - What does M.I.H.O.P. mean? argued whether MIHOP = "inside job," and the pedantry ensued. My mistake. It's suppose it's possible that the other thing happened too, though.
Click to expand...
It was one of those threads where 'prove the other person wrong' took precedence over verifiable objective fact.

Two different false dichotomies from my memory - refreshed by a quick reminder glimpse at the first three posts.

1) The identity of 'it' where the problem of logic I have seen repeated over the years is the presumption by both 'sides' that 'it' was a single homogeneous entity that either was or was not 'made' or 'let' to happen or 'happened out of incompetence'. Both sides insisting on the single entity so 'it' was either true or false as a whole. Both sides ignoring the structural reality that whatever 'it' may have been it was made up of a lot of bits and pieces scattered across many arms of government and therefore it was essential to define whether you were talking about a part or the whole before any reasoned arguments could be made. Classic 'us' v 'them' polarisation leading to false dichotomies - 'if you are not with us you must be against us' stuff.

2) The question of 'who', some like me and femr2 having used the expressions in their literal meaning having presumed that 'who ' was not defined - possibly to our error whilst others insisting that 'who' only ever meant naughty perpetrators. Some of the latter group then going out on a very thin limb to claim that no term in common use could ever have a literal meaning which differed from their preferred usage. So the same classic polarisation leading to false dichotomies etc etc

Ah the fun we can have when we don't define terminology and presume that the idiots on the other side are using the word the same way as all those intelligent people who agree with us (me ;) )

Reminds me of the old saying "There are two groups of people in this world. Those who agree with me and those who are wrong."

:o

;)
 
shure said:
Why I support the "Official Story"
Click to expand...
There is some irony in this post following immediately after my post on "it" and "who"

So
Shures Linked Thread said:
By "Official Story" I am referring to Government Investigations into the 9-11 attacks, official government documents, Mainstream news reports, and reports from established "mainstream" authors.
Click to expand...
I find it impossible to either support or disagree with THE 'Official Story' because it is not a single homogeneous entity. The 'story' has lots of parts, there is no single compilation which is the ruling 'Official Version'.

Many truthers deny the validity of 'the' official story - by implication that means that they deny that two Twin Towers stood in NYC on 9/10, were struck by something on 9/11 and were no longer standing on 9/12. Either that or they should have said 'We (I) deny the truth of parts of the official story' and go on to say which parts.

There are aspects of the official story I agree with - starting with the three quoted above;
There are aspects of the official story I don't agree with;
There are far more aspects of the official story where I have not formed any opinion; AND
There are a lot more that I don't even know about.

On that latter point take the NIST reports as an example. NIST had four objectives. I have only read about one of them. (explain why the buildings collapsed) so I cannot be a supporter of 'The Official Story'. Which leads to the same form of false dichotomy I described in my previous post. Because I cannot be a believer of the official story does not mean that I disagree with the official story.

The logic error is similar to the one in the claim made with some authority "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." :boggled:
 
Last edited:
Yea. "official story". As if the government made up a story, science and all, and all the world's major scientific, engineering, and law enforcement organizations, and all the insurance companies just went along with it no questions asked.

Ridiculous
 
shure said:
Why I support the "Official Story"

http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3863772/1/
Click to expand...

Oh look, another 4000-word avalanche of speculation presented as fact, and rambling cut-and-pastes that support no particular idea. Which you then call "a small sample."

Allright, let's try this one last time:

Shure, do you assert that individuals employed by the United States government intentionally took actions to help the 9-11 attacks succeed?

[] Yes
[] No

I'm giving you a great opportunity here. I am telling you, with complete sincerity, that what you mock me for wanting is exactly what I want. It's exactly what I've been asking for this entire thread.

"Yes" or "No" please.
 
shure said:
Why I support the "Official Story"

http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3863772/1/


:jaw-dropp
Click to expand...

Your link didn't make it past the first paragraph before it started lying:

The official story tells us that when given repeated warnings of a catastrophic attack, the Secretary of Defense deserted his post when the attacks finally happened on 9-11...
Click to expand...

"According to most accounts, at the time the Pentagon is hit, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is in his office on the third floor of the Pentagon’s outer E Ring, receiving his daily intelligence briefing."

"Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld heads for the crash site immediately after the Pentagon is hit."

Only in truther-land would this be called "deserting his post." Once again you prove you have no concept of what normal people do in the real world.

Childlike Empress said:
It's not a matter of opinion, shure's assertions or one of your hilarious, arrogant rants getting even the premise wrong, it's documented fact.

YES
Click to expand...

Funny how you never provide actual evidence to support your claims and bold assertions of fact. Why is that?
 
In a court of law, the police informant files the charge(s) on a piece of paper. Under each charge (the offence & relevant legal Act number) is a short paragraph detailing the time/date, place and circumstances of the crime.

Shure, CE, paolo alto, please provide:

The Defendant:
The Charge:
A short description of the circumstances of the crime.

Not a whole tl;dr screed of tedious minutiae which we are supposed to go "Woo" over by merit of it being oh-so-sexy and governmental.
 
The Defendants: The residents of the JREF 9/11 CT Subforum
The Charge: pseudo-skepticism of the most transparent and absurd kind
A short description of the circumstances of the crime: For many months now, the defendants ignored and danced around well documented facts about the lead-up to 9/11. Despite being spoon-fed this information over and over again, they pretend it doesn't exist and is based on delusional opinions of some undesirable "twoofers". The defendants didn't even try to engage in "debunking", instead resorted to continuous back-padding and desperate reassurements of alleged rationality.
Evidence: This thread
Ruling: Guilty as charged
Punishment: Ridicule
 
Childlike Empress said:
The Defendants: The residents of the JREF 9/11 CT Subforum
The Charge: pseudo-skepticism of the most transparent and absurd kind
A short description of the circumstances of the crime: For many months now, the defendants ignored and danced around well documented facts about the lead-up to 9/11. Despite being spoon-fed this information over and over again, they pretend it doesn't exist and is based on delusional opinions of some undesirable "twoofers". The defendants didn't even try to engage in "debunking", instead resorted to continuous back-padding and desperate reassurements of alleged rationality.
Evidence: This thread
Ruling: Guilty as charged
Punishment: Ridicule
Click to expand...

Which Hollywood movie was that?
 
Thanks for showing us you care more about internet arguments than 9/11 truth, CE.

Perhaps shure, etc can do better.
 
Orphia Nay said:
Thanks for showing us you care more about internet arguments than 9/11 truth, CE.

Perhaps shure, etc can do better.
Click to expand...


What has doing your homework gotta do with 9/11 truth, Orphia? I hope you don't expect me to believe that you are genuinely interested. But i'll help you with Google too, should you show signs of research/debunking attempts.

The thing is, this information that paloalto helped unearth is now out for several years, and thanks to the documentary this thread is about, the big picture is known to several of the people involved. It's all out there. Shure offered you his interview with paloalto - it contains some information about why he didn't win a Pulitzer yet.

So, what you choose to deny is completely irrelevant - what would you do, start a movement, hahaha.
 
childlike empress said:
the defendants: the residents of the jref 9/11 ct subforum
the charge: pseudo-skepticism of the most transparent and absurd kind
a short description of the circumstances of the crime: for many months now, the defendants ignored and danced around well documented facts about the lead-up to 9/11. Despite being spoon-fed this information over and over again, they pretend it doesn't exist and is based on delusional opinions of some undesirable "twoofers". The defendants didn't even try to engage in "debunking", instead resorted to continuous back-padding and desperate reassurements of alleged rationality.
evidence: this thread
ruling: guilty as charged dismissed with extreme prejudice.
punishment: ridicule at the plaintiff, defendants attorneys to be paid by plaintiff, and plaintiff assessed fines for wasting the courts time
Click to expand...

ftfy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom