Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[SteveAustin]

In your world, is there a difference between "deconstruct" and "misrepresent"?

There's the smear right off the start

The quote was not what I was describing as a strawman argument, so there's your first misrepresentation. First comment, first lie.

Actually Dave yes it was, and you are lying now saying it wasn't. Here's the proof for those of you who would not want to scroll up.

Bill smith's presentation of this quote in a forum dedicated to the discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories is a textbook example of one of the standard 9/11 truther strawman arguments.

Now you need to admit you lied and give me an apology for saying I was lying about what you said.

And then, compounding the lie, you post your opinion of my motivation, presented as fact.

Yes, my opinion on your motivation. Yet we have just cleared the air as to who was lying and it is clear I was not lying and you were Dave, but here you know how much trouble you are in so you sink to the lowest level possible and throw out the "LIAR" mantra and hope that no one notices.

So far, we have the opinion of a conspiracy theorist radio host and two anonymous posters on an Internet forum that the quote is self-evidently accurate. Not exactly authoritative. The truth is that there are people who take action in the face of a corrupt government, just as there are people who openly admit that their government is corrupt but feel that any action they take will be futile.

So now we have a repeated use of;

32 A quick way of getting rid of an opponent’s assertion, or of throwing suspicion on it, is by putting it into some odious category.

and

25 If your opponent is making a generalization, find an instance to the contrary.

While at the same time again claiming that we are making some kind of claim to authority.

The psychology of the quote is not very complex, nor is it controversial

History is full of counter-examples. In fact, it's central to the truther belief system that truthers are themselves counter-examples.

This is intended to be some kind of witty counter to the quote and to my arguments here, yet it fails on every level because it purposely ignores that the quote itself says "MANY" and not everybody so showing any examples to the contrary...if it does anything, supports the quote.

Now that raises an interesting point. Truthers are in general very good at making insinuations that are never backed up by genuine claims - it's known here as JAQing off. If you ask questions, then when the questions are answered then you can save face by disavowing any suggestion that you believed an incorrect answer to the question. RedIbis is a master of this no-claimer approach. It's basically the same tactic as a political smear campaign - ask leading questions, imply that the answers are highly incriminating, but always avoid committment to any specific position of your own.

Now this is classic smoke and mirrors, but coming from someone who I have shown lied (top of this very post) it is not surprising.

I'm cutting out the "38 ways to win an argument" spiel, because I've already pointed out the flaws with it.

You really hate those don't you? They are accurate when used appropriately. Those lists... "38 ways..." and "How to Debunk..." are simply lists that can be referred to to help cut through all the BS in most peoples "arguments", and it is very revealing how very many JREF'ers really hate when I bring them up.

And yet, finally, you're effectively admitting that the purpose of the quote is to argue in favour of US Government involvement in 9/11.

1 Carry your opponent’s proposition beyond its natural limits; exaggerate it.

Again there you go with your tactics. The quote explains how and why so many people can fall for the official conspiracy theory and how 9/11 might be carried out as a psyop. It explains how...If "truthers" are correct...how the government could get away with it so easily with so much information and evidence out there.

If you want to carry that to it's extreme and say that I am saying that quote is some sort of proof of US government involvement then you are allowed to use any tactic you want.

Well, if you want to argue in favour of 9/11 psyops on the basis of psychology

9/11 was a psyops, it was intended to "shock and awe" the people into a childlike state into which the government could implant their "Official Conspiracy Theory". Do a little research on this "shock and awe" effect of psychology, it is quite common, heck even used car salesmen use the tecnic if on a far far smaller scale.

Even if you want to believe it was 19 Arab terrorist, it was sitll a psyop because an act of terrorism is intended to instill fear in people.

It is all psychological which ever way you look at it.

I suggest you do a little more research into the subject, instead of just picking a random quote from an uninformed and biased observer and elevating it to the level of ultimate truth.

Dave

You'd be surprised how much research i've done into psychology, 9/11 and the psychology of 9/11.

 

[FineWine]

Do you stlll say that we have not gathered enough to justify a new enquiry ?

We need to be very clear on this point: You and your fellow delusional frauds have gathered ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Let's pause for a moment. So far, a "truther" has made a false statement and a debunker has has attempted to drag him, kicking and screaming, back into reality. Like most "truthers," you will ignore the assertion I made, while continuing to post scattershot claims. Therefore I will return to my statement:

The misnamed "Truth" Movement has produced NOTHING to support its fantastic claims. Again, we need to be very clear. You and your fellow frauds have not produced "little"; you have produced NOTHING.

Here's what you posted on the closed thread:

"At what point would we have to say that debunker's continued insistance that there was no 9/11 conspiracy is ridiculous ? I mean with all the stuff hat's coming out it is plain to see that there is a huge case to be answered.
For so many on this forum to be pathologically (or cynically) opposed to the notion in the face of all the evidence that is coalescing is just not canny. There is a professional face to this that is becoming clearer with every passing day.
There is absolutely no doubt any more that a new and completely independent 9/11 enquiry with full powers of subpoena is urgently needed."

NO "STUFF" IS COMING OUT. You, like many "truthers," pretend that some sort of ongoing process is yielding new evidence. There is no evidence for your side, new or old. Almost eight years have passed sincee Islamist terrorists attacked America. The terrorist groups remain proud of their victory. No one has leaked anything to suggest that a conspiracy originating within the government was involved. EVERYTHING indicates that your conspiracy is an agenda-driven figment of your imagination.

I can, of course, keep on listing the devastating questions that you run from. No purpose would be served--we get the point. You have trapped yourself in a dense network of outright lies. You can never hope to explain how your new investigation would work. How would we check the work of the forensic examiners to see if their DNA identifications were accurate? Where would we find the recovered structural steel that the original investigators studied? Why would the conclusions reached by serious researchers--conclusions that destroy your nonsensical myths--penetrate your irrational denial-systems?

You have no evidence; you are producing no evidence; no evidence for your mad beliefs will ever be produced.

 

[bill smith]

I have an idea, instead of parroting other peoples words, why don't you search this forum for examples of such behavior?

Will you do that?

Is that the real date that you joined this forum David ?....september 2001 ? Can you remember which date in that month you joined ?

 

[SteveAustin]

Why not throw a quote from Hitler to round out your support for liars and apologies for murdering terrorists?

You and bill smith are posting what is wrong with your movement made up on lies. You are posting your problems and projecting them on others. You and bill smith fail to understand the events of 911 being the acts of 19 terrorists due to lack of knowledge or some other reason and you can't figure it out.

You and bill smith think you have evidence but your evidence bag is missing, empty, and never was. You can't stop posting junk ideas on 911 long enough to recognize you are spewing hearsay, lies and delusions. You made a mistake coming to a skeptic forum with lies, failed opinions, and false ideas.

It is ironic as bill smith quotes people talking about propaganda as he spews brain dead propaganda from 911TruthLies.

This is what I refer to as "the beachnut mantra"

He repeats over and over again in almost all of his posts how truthers "lie" "hearsay" "delusions" "junk ideas" "apologize for terrorists" "brain dead" and many many more, and he repeats them over and over again.

If you repeat something often enough some people will start to believe it. This is also standard psychology.

 

[bill smith]

We need to be very clear on this point: You and your fellow delusional frauds have gathered ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Let's pause for a moment. So far, a "truther" has made a false statement and a debunker has has attempted to drag him, kicking and screaming, back into reality. Like most "truthers," you will ignore the assertion I made, while continuing to post scattershot claims. Therefore I will return to my statement:

The misnamed "Truth" Movement has produced NOTHING to support its fantastic claims. Again, we need to be very clear. You and your fellow frauds have not produced "little"; you have produced NOTHING.

Here's what you posted on the closed thread:

"At what point would we have to say that debunker's continued insistance that there was no 9/11 conspiracy is ridiculous ? I mean with all the stuff hat's coming out it is plain to see that there is a huge case to be answered.
For so many on this forum to be pathologically (or cynically) opposed to the notion in the face of all the evidence that is coalescing is just not canny. There is a professional face to this that is becoming clearer with every passing day.
There is absolutely no doubt any more that a new and completely independent 9/11 enquiry with full powers of subpoena is urgently needed."

NO "STUFF" IS COMING OUT. You, like many "truthers," pretend that some sort of ongoing process is yielding new evidence. There is no evidence for your side, new or old. Almost eight years have passed sincee Islamist terrorists attacked America. The terrorist groups remain proud of their victory. No one has leaked anything to suggest that a conspiracy originating within the government was involved. EVERYTHING indicates that your conspiracy is an agenda-driven figment of your imagination.

I can, of course, keep on listing the devastating questions that you run from. No purpose would be served--we get the point. You have trapped yourself in a dense network of outright lies. You can never hope to explain how your new investigation would work. How would we check the work of the forensic examiners to see if their DNA identifications were accurate? Where would we find the recovered structural steel that the original investigators studied? Why would the conclusions reached by serious researchers--conclusions that destroy your nonsensical myths--penetrate your irrational denial-systems?

You have no evidence; you are producing no evidence; no evidence for your mad beliefs will ever be produced.

Against a master-debunker like yourself FineWine- what chance do any of us poor Truthers stand. Have mercy on us.

 

[bill smith]

This is what I refer to as "the beachnut mantra"

He repeats over and over again in almost all of his posts how truthers "lie" "hearsay" "delusions" "junk ideas" "apologize for terrorists" "brain dead" and many many more, and he repeats them over and over again.

If you repeat something often enough some people will start to believe it. This is also standard psychology.

That tacttic is mentioned in here.

Edited by Tricky: 

Rule 12 violation removed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awy8cmcuBlk&feature=related video on cointelpro

Please refrain from personal attacks that have nothing to do with the discussion.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[T.A.M.]

So discussing the psyop aspect of 9/11 is off-topic in the "general discussion thread" in the "9/11 CT subforum" forum?

The constant calls of my being off-topic when discussing the psyops is a big clue as to how threathened people are by it

The discussion of it is not off topic. Unfortunately, bill did not present it in such a fashion. He presented a quote with NO CONTEXT and NO COMMENTARY of his own either related to 9/11 CTs or debunkers.

What discussion arises from it is different, but as to the original posting of the quote, it was not in and of itself (without proper context and commentary) relevant.

TAM

 

[beachnut]

Any comment Beachnut ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Q8hlm6SYts&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EYADSfbHco

Edited by Tricky: 

Rule 12 violation removed.

You still tell lies about 911 and fail to present evidence.

But you had no comment? The nut case on the second video was spewing lies

Edited by Tricky: 

Rule 12 violation removed.

.

Please refrain from personal attacks that have nothing to do with the discussion.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[tfk]

I guess a couple hundred years of psychology is not good enough "evidence" for you is it Dave?

That piece of "pop" psychology is quite clearly fact. It is psychology 101. It doesn't matter how you try and portray it. This is how the human mind works...

It does not, all it does is show you have no understanding of psychology.

.
Sorry Steve,

The only thing that "a couple hundred (??) years of psychology" proves is that the word "fact" is utterly meaningless to the field.

Now, let's see if this particular statement stands up to 15 SECONDS worth of scrutiny...

"Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary..."

Surely, you're joking.
[My estimates at the end of their terms.]
Nixon: 90% of US citizens thought he was a liar & a cheat. 98% thought Congress was a pack of liars.
Ford: 30% of US citizens thought he was a liar & a cheat. 98% thought Congress was a pack of liars.
Carter: 30% of US citizens thought he was a liar & a cheat. 98% thought Congress was a pack of liars.
Reagan: 70% of US citizens thought he was a liar & a cheat. 98% thought Congress was a pack of liars.
Bush: 50% of US citizens thought he was a liar & a cheat. 98% thought Congress was a pack of liars.
Clinton: 80% of US citizens thought he was a liar & a cheat. 98% thought Congress was a pack of liars.
Bush 2: 90% of US citizens thought he was a liar & a cheat. 98% thought Congress was a pack of liars.
Obama: 25% of this country thinks is a liar & a cheat. 98% think Congress is a pack of liars.

Notice that the ONLY ones that are below "50% liars & cheats" are the short timers. Give Obama a few years.

So, your pop psych is complete nonsense on its face.

tom

 

[T.A.M.]

Edited by Tricky: 

Removed response to modded post.

 

[Horatius]

ROFL...

25 If your opponent is making a generalization, find an instance to the contrary.

You do realize you have done nothing to refute the quote right? Most people have "double think" when it comes to their government and can easily hold the two opposing views of "I do not trust the government" and "most people prefer to believe their governments are just and fair" at the same time.

But if you think that quote is simply about "trust in the government" then you have really missed the ball

...and there you go, just ignoring the evidence. Typical.

 

[SteveAustin]

That tacttic is mentioned in here.

Edited by Tricky: 

Removed reference to modded post.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awy8cmcuBlk&feature=related video on cointelpro

Unfortunately I am unable to access youtube right now, maybe later I will be able to. Sounds like I will enjoy watching that video.

If you want my honest opinion, I think beachnut's subconscious is fighting with his conscious belief in the OCT. His attitude, his reactions, his comments are signs of this, like his conscious belief is fighting his subconscious. This is a good thing. His subconscious is trying to set him straight but he is fighting it.

This is a step further than many others on these forums has come. Of course I can't make a real diagnosis over the internet like this, but it certainly is pointing to this as the case.

 

[beachnut]

That tacttic is mentioned in here.

Edited by Tricky: 

Removed reference to modded post.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awy8cmcuBlk&feature=related video on cointelpro

Tactic? You have no evidence and prove it by posting lies from neoNAZI sites and other moronic clowns with dumbed down statements just for you.

You post moronic tripe about 911. You post lies based on hearsay and delusions.

You can't offer evidence to the contrary nor can SteveAustin.
You and SteveAustin are the no evidence twins taking action to post more false conclusions on 911 without evidence. It is your mantra to post lies. If you had evidence you would not waste a post on me. Why mention me if you have such overwhelming evidence? Because you have lies, hearsay, moronic delusions and failed opinions. You and SteveAustin are in the same club spewing junk ideas on 911.

Poor 911TruthLies hiding behind idiotic videos.

 

[SteveAustin]

The discussion of it is not off topic. Unfortunately, bill did not present it in such a fashion. He presented a quote with NO CONTEXT and NO COMMENTARY of his own either related to 9/11 CTs or debunkers.

What discussion arises from it is different, but as to the original posting of the quote, it was not in and of itself (without proper context and commentary) relevant.

TAM

That's rather disingeneous of you TAM...

The quote itself has the proper context and commentary

 

[Horatius]

.
Now, let's see if this particular statement stands up to 15 SECONDS worth of scrutiny...

"Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary..."

Surely, you're joking.
[My estimates at the end of their terms.]
Nixon: 90% of US citizens thought he was a liar & a cheat. 98% thought Congress was a pack of liars.
Ford: 30% of US citizens thought he was a liar & a cheat. 98% thought Congress was a pack of liars.
Carter: 30% of US citizens thought he was a liar & a cheat. 98% thought Congress was a pack of liars.
Reagan: 70% of US citizens thought he was a liar & a cheat. 98% thought Congress was a pack of liars.
Bush: 50% of US citizens thought he was a liar & a cheat. 98% thought Congress was a pack of liars.
Clinton: 80% of US citizens thought he was a liar & a cheat. 98% thought Congress was a pack of liars.
Bush 2: 90% of US citizens thought he was a liar & a cheat. 98% thought Congress was a pack of liars.
Obama: 25% of this country thinks is a liar & a cheat. 98% think Congress is a pack of liars.

Notice that the ONLY ones that are below "50% liars & cheats" are the short timers. Give Obama a few years.

So, your pop psych is complete nonsense on its face.

tom

Oh, come on! Those are just specific instances!

 

[T.A.M.]

Unfortunately I am unable to access youtube right now, maybe later I will be able to. Sounds like I will enjoy watching that video.

If you want my honest opinion, I think beachnut's subconscious is fighting with his conscious belief in the OCT. His attitude, his reactions, his comments are signs of this, like his conscious belief is fighting his subconscious. This is a good thing. His subconscious is trying to set him straight but he is fighting it.

This is a step further than many others on these forums has come. Of course I can't make a real diagnosis over the internet like this, but it certainly is pointing to this as the case.

I think your wrong on this one. While I have no formal Psychology training, as a Family Physician with extensive Psychiatric Training, I do not think beachnut is fighting anything except a battle within to beat you guys to a pulp verbally, or not. Most times the "do it" side wins.

He has never exhibited any behavior or posted any content that would make me think for a second that he has any battle going on with his belief in the Official Account of 9/11.

Perhaps your extensive psychology training will show me different.

Thanks

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

That's rather disingeneous of you TAM...

The quote itself has the proper context and commentary

No not at all...

You can't simply just come here and post a quote that may or may not be relevant to the topic at hand, without posting some context, or some commentary. Beyond the ambiguity it can create, it is simply poor form.

TAM

 

[beachnut]

That's rather disingeneous of you TAM...

The quote itself has the proper context and commentary

No it did not. bill smith posted junk off topic and did zero comment to tie to 911. He SPAMs all the time and we have to tie it to his moronic conclusions on 911 for him.

You and bill smith are void of evidence to make your delusions on 911 come true so you talk about tangential things since you can't support your failed conclusions.

 

[SteveAustin]

.
Sorry Steve,

The only thing that "a couple hundred (??) years of psychology" proves is that the word "fact" is utterly meaningless to the field.

...

Notice that the ONLY ones that are below "50% liars & cheats" are the short timers. Give Obama a few years.

So, your pop psych is complete nonsense on its face.

tom

You are trying to imply that psychology is a simple "THIS" or "THAT" state, when it is not. As I mentioned already but will repeat here...

Most people have "double think" when it comes to their government and can easily hold the two opposing views of "I do not trust the government" and "most people prefer to believe their governments are just and fair" at the same time.

But it can be even more complex than that tom, and often is.

Your simple attempt to throw out my whole argument by trying to strip down a very complex situation into a one "issue" problem fails because that is not the way the human mind works usually.

 

[SteveAustin]

...and there you go, just ignoring the evidence. Typical.

Evidence? He missed the mark completely and either on purpose or accidentally missed what the quote is all about.

Seems though you are guilty of what you just accused me of doing though. Debunkers do seem to have an unlimited capability to not see what they do not want to see.