Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[Grizzly Bear]

And alternatively there are some things which you can't place under the guise of psychology, such as well understood principals in a field of study.

 

[T.A.M.]

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.

Yah, like that is limited to debunkers. Pot group, meet kettle group.

I say enough with the cyber psychoanalysis.

TAM

 

[FineWine]

WOW Dave, you have backtracked all the way to “it’s pop psychology”.

Let’s deconstruct your “argument” Dave, shall we?



It’s not a straw man argument. It is a simple fact of psychology. It is a simple fact of how people think, act and react. This has been known in psychology for a very very long time. It is not disputed.

A straw man argument is a false argument created with falsehoods so it can then be torn down by pointing out those falsehoods and then say “look, they were wrong” (which by coincidence is just exactly what you are doing here Dave)

Tell me where Bill or anyone has done this, or even attempted to do this with this quote?

But you needed to try and prevent people from really understanding that quote because it is dangerous for people to have any introspection into their actions, reactions, motives and beliefs. That is why you knowingly mislabelled it as a “straw man argument”



Now who is building a straw man argument. Let’s see how this straw man argument is further built up…



And that is what a real straw man argument looks like. Nicely done Dave





So you are still trying to imply that the psychology is wrong without saying it is wrong? And hence by implication with the use of your straw man argument that Bill and I are wrong.



Nice misdirection there Dave, but no truther I know has ever tried to claim this. I have however seen many “debunkers” use this straw man argument.

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


6 Confuse the issue by changing your opponent’s words or what he or she seeks to prove.
24 State a false syllogism


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


28 When the audience consists of individuals (or a person) who is not an expert on a subject, you make an invalid objection to your opponent who seems to be defeated in the eyes of the audience.

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.



35 Instead of working on an opponent’s intellect or the rigor of his arguments, work on his motive.


Psychologically speaking, and “debunking tactics” wise this paragraph of yours is a real doozy…



Bottom line is the Mike Rivero quote is accurate...

"Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."

and quoting it here in this forum is valid. It goes to show the psychology behind many JREF'ers actions and reactions and comments. The psychology behind 9/11 is an important part of 9/11, since 9/11 was after all the biggest psyop in history.

It is fascinating that you so often thrust yourself into discussions about the nature of critical thinking and logic. You are conspicuously devoid of critical thinking skills, and logic remains terra incognita to you. Let's take a look at the post from Bill Smith:

"I believe this gem from Mike Rivero absolutely. Who wants to deny this Truth."

"Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."

The first clause of the opening sentence is false. Most people in the U.S. actively distrust politicians, regarding them as mediocre individuals highly susceptible to corrupting influences. The cult that has sprung up around Barack Obama reflects the attitudes of a celebrity-crazed minority. The second clause illustrates perfectly what Dave Rogers is getting at. In order to acknowledge that a politician is lying, there must first be statements that qualify as lies.

The misnamed "truth" movement restricts itself entirely to baseless accusations of lying, without ever showing that any lies were actually told. We are asked to believe that a gigantic conspiracy that never leaks anything perpetrated a monstrous crime for no discernible motives. We are asked to pretend, against reason and sanity, that avowed enemies of America and the West simply do not exist. We are asked to swallow the preposterously improbable notion that all the thousands of people whose accounts of the events of 9/11 are consistent with the conclusion that Islamist terrorists hijacked planes are being magically controlled by unseen forces. Similarly, we are asked, on the basis of precisely nothing, to regard the researchers whose work provides a scientifically sound explanation for the collapses of the buildings as complicit in a mass murder.

What you frauds always neglect to do is provide any remotely plausible rationale for your posturing. You are the ones who refuse to think at all. You dismiss hard work done by serious scientists and engineers with a mindless sneer. You lack the intelligence to understand why your cherished myths are nonsense, and you refuse to make any effort to learn. You are easily manipulated by conscienceless scoundrels peddling worthless drivel. You exhibit the classic mob mentality. The statement that the Islamist attack on America was a "psyop" is sheer madness, the ravings of a fact-free lunatic. Nothing supports it; everything refutes it.

It is an example of pop psychology at its worst to blather about reactions to propaganda without showing any examples of actual propaganda. The dishonest "truth" movement churns out much propaganda. Nobody can credibly say as much about the sane side.

 

[T.A.M.]

Perhaps it will. As I said though you cannot make an accurate assessment over the internet like this. For one thing, body language and facial expression are a huge part in reading someone.

So you could very well be correct on this one TAM, it was simply an offhand remark

I figured (that it was off handed). One caution to you, as you seem to be a smart fellow. Just as you are guilty of making off handed remarks, that others may not take as such, realize that others can be guilty of the same.

TAM

 

[Dave Rogers]

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

You were pretending that I claimed that the quote was a strawman argument. I was pointing out that bill smith's use of the quote was a strawman argument. Therefore, no apology is needed, because you were misrepresenting my argument. I won't expect one from you.

I'm bored with this now. Bye.

Dave

 

[SteveAustin]

And alternatively there are some things which you can't place under the guise of psychology, such as well understood principals in a field of study.

But you can place peoples interpretations of those fields of study (as the many many many debates in every field of science proves) and what people will and will not see that is plain to everyone else because they have a psychological block preventing them from seeing it.

 

[T.A.M.]

It is fascinating that you so often thrust yourself into discussions about the nature of critical thinking and logic. You are conspicuously devoid of critical thinking skills, and logic remains terra incognita to you. Let's take a look at the post from Bill Smith:

"I believe this gem from Mike Rivero absolutely. Who wants to deny this Truth."

"Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."

The first clause of the opening sentence is false. Most people in the U.S. actively distrust politicians, regarding them as mediocre individuals highly susceptible to corrupting influences. The cult that has sprung up around Barack Obama reflects the attitudes of a celebrity-crazed minority. The second clause illustrates perfectly what Dave Rogers is getting at. In order to acknowledge that a politician is lying, there must first be statements that qualify as lies.

The misnamed "truth" movement restricts itself entirely to baseless accusations of lying, without ever showing that any lies were actually told. We are asked to believe that a gigantic conspiracy that never leaks anything perpetrated a monstrous crime for no discernible motives. We are asked to pretend, against reason and sanity, that avowed enemies of America and the West simply do not exist. We are asked to swallow the preposterously improbable notion that all the thousands of people whose accounts of the events of 9/11 are consistent with the conclusion that Islamist terrorists hijacked planes are being magically controlled by unseen forces. Similarly, we are asked, on the basis of precisely nothing, to regard the researchers whose work provides a scientifically sound explanation for the collapses of the buildings as complicit in a mass murder.

What you frauds always neglect to do is provide any remotely plausible rationale for your posturing. You are the ones who refuse to think at all. You dismiss hard work done by serious scientists and engineers with a mindless sneer. You lack the intelligence to understand why your cherished myths are nonsense, and you refuse to make any effort to learn. You are easily manipulated by conscienceless scoundrels peddling worthless drivel. You exhibit the classic mob mentality. The statement that the Islamist attack on America was a "psyop" is sheer madness, the ravings of a fact-free lunatic. Nothing supports it; everything refutes it.

It is an example of pop psychology at its worst to blather about reactions to propaganda without showing any examples of actual propaganda. The dishonest "truth" movement churns out much propaganda. Nobody can credibly say as much about the sane side.

Nice...very nice.

TAM

 

[FineWine]

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

You stand no chance whatever because you are a delusional, fact-free fraud. Respond to the SPECIFIC charges I make:

WHAT has your tiny, insane movement actually produced?

HOW would your ideologically-driven "investigation" proceed in the absence of the evidence available to the original investigators?

WHEN will you frauds stop bleating and SHOW US SOMETHING?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

But you can place peoples interpretations of those fields of study (as the many many many debates in every field of science proves) and what people will and will not see that is plain to everyone else because they have a psychological block preventing them from seeing it.

Something I agree with, albeit most likely for under different circumstances than yourself.

 

[TK0001]

WHAT has your tiny, insane movement actually produced?

A nice living for the likes of Alex Jones and Dylan Avery.

Other than that, nothing.

 

[T.A.M.]

A nice living for the likes of Alex Jones and Dylan Avery.

Other than that, nothing.

Come on it produced pdoh!
It has provided a continuous source of entertainment for hundreds of posters on this forum.

Oh and don't forget the classic black t-shirts....it produced those.

TAM

 

[SteveAustin]

You were pretending that I claimed that the quote was a strawman argument. I was pointing out that bill smith's use of the quote was a strawman argument. Therefore, no apology is needed, because you were misrepresenting my argument.

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

ROFL Dave,

And Dave tries to lie his way out of a lie. You claimed the quote "is a textbook example of one of the standard 9/11 truther strawman arguments".

Because if the quote is not a strawman argument then Bill's use of the quote cannot be a strawman argument.

Trying to dissemble and now claim it is Bill's use of the quote that is the strawman simply does not work.

I won't expect one from you.

Are you trying to imply I have said something deserving of an apology?

I'm bored with this now. Bye.

Dave

 

[TK0001]

Come on it produced pdoh!
It has provided a continuous source of entertainment for hundreds of posters on this forum.

Oh and don't forget the classic black t-shirts....it produced those.

TAM

Yes, those as well.

Also I forgot it brought about a resurgence in the popularity of the megaphone as a communication tool. Along with that the undeniable truth that a pile of verbal BS sounds much more convincing if it's amplified.

 

[FineWine]

A nice living for the likes of Alex Jones and Dylan Avery.

Other than that, nothing.

All kidding aside, it is important to stress that Bill Smith told another outright lie. He claimed that his side was bringing out new information. It is an indisputable fact that "truthers" have NEVER produced a single piece of evidence that supports their lunatic claims. Our side can never hope to pin these liars down on specific points because we have ALL the evidence. There is nothing to argue. The frauds ALWAYS run away when confronted with their indefensible statements. They can never acknowledge error, as their house of cards would simply collapse. We should lower our sights and count it as a victory whenever we reduce the fraud to turning tail and fleeing.

 

[SteveAustin]

Yes, those as well.

Also I forgot it brought about a resurgence in the popularity of the megaphone as a communication tool. Along with that the undeniable truth that a pile of verbal BS sounds much more convincing if it's amplified.

2 things you forget to mention.

1 - it is not a crime to make some money but to smear them by implying this is the only reason they are doing what they are doing is one of those tactics I have often quoted here.

2 - How many of those government officials, military personel etc... made money off of 9/11 in some way shape or form? Something no debunker seems to want to mention

 

[FineWine]

Allegation,n....def [A formal accusation against somebody]

From your post: ''allegations of medical illness''

We obviously have different ways of looking at the significance of illness.

So with that established I am ready to drop this stupid distraction.

Gee, maybe that means you'll address my questions?


How come you frauds got all your predictions wrong?

If the Israelis knew about the Islamist attacks in advance, then there really were Islamist attacks, huh?

What the heck does happen when those thirteen collapsing floors hit the next floor in line?

 

[Horatius]

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

Missed the mark completely?

The entire quote rests on the assertion "Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary..." which is trivially easy to show is false.

You brush off that evidence, saying, "Oh, that's just a specific example! I'm speaking in general!", which is just a cheap out that lets you ignore any evidence we might provide, as any actual, real evidence is, by it's nature, specific examples. Were your "General" point to have any merit, it would be a simple matter for you to provide counter examples. But since it isn't, and you know it isn't, your only fall back is to quote that Truther Playbook of yours, which provides you with the excuse you need to ignore the evidence presented.

Go ahead and ask yourself this: If your position is so obviously correct, why do you have a standard rebuttal available to anyone who quotes evidence to you?


Now, go ahead and tell me how it's "more complicated" than that. That will be ever so much more convincing than you actually defending your beliefs with evidence.

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.

While you're discussing psychology, try looking up projection.

And while you're at it, how about pointing me to where I've ignored the evidence you've provided? So far, all I've seen are assertions.

 

[FineWine]

2 things you forget to mention.

1 - it is not a crime to make some money but to smear them by implying this is the only reason they are doing what they are doing is one of those tactics I have often quoted here.

2 - How many of those government officials, military personel etc... made money off of 9/11 in some way shape or form? Something no debunker seems to want to mention

1) David Ray Griffin has been exposed as a liar. The information he recycles over and over has been refuted comprehensively. He continues to produce the same garbage under different covers and markets it to the dumbest, most uncritical suckers on the planet. He is in the conspiracy game for the money.

2) I have no idea and neither do you. Harry Truman inveighed against war profiteers back in 1944. Does that mean WWII was fought to make money for a few crooks?

 

[bill smith]

Gee, maybe that means you'll address my questions?


How come you frauds got all your predictions wrong?

If the Israelis knew about the Islamist attacks in advance, then there really were Islamist attacks, huh?

What the heck does happen when those thirteen collapsing floors hit the next floor in line?

Sorry, I am only a simple SuperTruther. You will hhave to go to a higher echelon in the TM command structure for answers to these difficult questions.

 

[FineWine]

ROFL Dave,

And Dave tries to lie his way out of a lie. You claimed the quote "is a textbook example of one of the standard 9/11 truther strawman arguments".

Because if the quote is not a strawman argument then Bill's use of the quote cannot be a strawman argument.

Trying to dissemble and now claim it is Bill's use of the quote that is the strawman simply does not work.



Are you trying to imply I have said something deserving of an apology?

Your predictable refusal to address my lengthy post speaks volumes. Dave Rogers did not lie.