Hello JREF, I bring you "Tin Foil"!

[SkepticGuy]

according to him, expressed skepticism of the "official story". He cited several media organisations that attended, and implied that representatives of these organisations were interested in certain aspects of 911 conspiracy theories.

No I didn't. What is the point here? Why are you constantly seeking to attribute such statements to me, then when I deny your false attribution, claim I'm back-peddling. Do you refuse to look back at my statements, or are you just assuming that because I occasionally speak of "9/11 conspiracies" and also speak to media people, that through some unseen magic there are statements between the lines only you can see?

It seems more like you have a pre-ordained "twoofer plan of attack" to extend whatever I say into territory more comfortable to you... that territory being the "twoofer madness."

I had assumed anyone with a degree of basic intelligence could clearly see the massive chasm of different between someone in the media expressing interest in the "events of August of 2001" and the "rush to blame Osama" and any level of sympathy for "9/11 conspiracy theories." Very different. But in your world, apparently anyone who considers they'd might have interest in looking deeper into events or issues surrounding 9/11/2001 (even if it has nothing to do with any known conspiracy theory) is a pathetic twoofer. But in reality, such a mindset is just as pathetic as anyone expressing knowledge of such interest is relentless attacked with false attributions.

 

[8den]

But in reality, such a mindset is just as pathetic as anyone expressing knowledge of such interest is relentless attacked with false attributions.

No in reality anyone who displays your level of obfuscation and as obtuse as you isn't really worth bothering with.

Awaits the obligatory "back atcha".

 

[Sporanox]

Hey SkepticGuy, just so you know, I've come to the conclusion that there was no media doubt and therefore no sympathy for any type of conspiracy theory in mainstream journalism.

 

[SkepticGuy]

I've come to the conclusion that there was no media doubt

Are you certain there's none or are you making an assumption based on the intensity of "anti-conspiracy" rhetoric here in this particular JREF forum? Just as people of all types consider various degrees of "conspiracy theory" on a broad range of subject matter, a segment of those in journalism will also. But supposition doesn't mater...

My point has been this: the size and scope of any possible "media/journalistic sympathy" for any conspiracy notion surrounding 9/11 is unknown primarily because of "truther antics." (perhaps a more careful and concise wording will provide clarity for some)

There may be real and valid reasons to attract a journalist to investigate aspects of the activity of those within the government either before or soon after 9/11 that have nothing to do with "conspiracy theories." And herein is the problem exhibited by the group-think inspired jerking of knees experienced here... if one where to consider looking into anything 9/11 related the intense derision and "twoofer" accusations fly like schlag on the cheese cake at Peter Lugar's.

 

[Sporanox]

Are you certain there's none or are you making an assumption based on the intensity of "anti-conspiracy" rhetoric here in this particular JREF forum? Just as people of all types consider various degrees of "conspiracy theory" on a broad range of subject matter, a segment of those in journalism will also. But supposition doesn't mater...

My point has been this: the size and scope of any possible "media/journalistic sympathy" for any conspiracy notion surrounding 9/11 is unknown primarily because of "truther antics." (perhaps a more careful and concise wording will provide clarity for some)

SkepticGuy, it's been six years. There hasn't always been a twoofer bias, but there were those who claimed to have an inside scoop before Loose Change popularized the movement. If there was ANY substance to 9/11 conspiracy theories (NOTE: not twoofer CD, etc.), then the media would have ferreted it out by now - as they have with the secret prisons and wiretapping that I mentioned earlier.

There may be real and valid reasons to attract a journalist to investigate aspects of the activity of those within the government either before or soon after 9/11 that have nothing to do with "conspiracy theories."

The 9/11 Commission Report did a fine job of answering most of the journalistic questions, but I agree that there might be some non-conspiracy details of 9/11 worth considering.

And herein is the problem exhibited by the group-think inspired jerking of knees experienced here... if one where to consider looking into anything 9/11 related the intense derision and "twoofer" accusations fly like schlag on the cheese cake at Peter Lugar's.

This is because you are compulsively ambiguous, then simply tell us what your position is NOT. This makes it hard to find your position, and when you won't tell us, we draw our own conclusions. Look how long it took you to give us the statement discussed above...

 

[SkepticGuy]

then the media would have ferreted it out by now - as they have with the secret prisons and wiretapping that I mentioned earlier.

Nice. Now, if we could just get off the preoccupation with "twoofer madness" anytime the issue of 9/11 comes up.

I've related exceptionally limited comments, from an inconsequential number of media people I've engaged in conversation, but because the comments orbit the idea of 9/11 in some way... those comments have become the hub of this thread's evolution and are immediately put in the same class as "twoofers" and dismissed.

I opened with "nice" because you mentioned the secret prisons and wiretapping. Now, certainly these issues are scandalous by some measure here in this fora, and certainly contain levels of malfeasance from individuals tasked with public trust. By the same token, for those who speculate of conspiracies, these acts fit the standard definition.

but I agree that there might be some non-conspiracy details of 9/11 worth considering.

Now we're getting somewhere, and that's exactly my point.

At the risk of the sound of a thousand JREF jerking knees, consider what important items might be discovered in similar fashion as those examples of yours as related to the events of 9/11. No need to invoke the term "conspiracy," there is only the need to consider wrong-doing, gross negligence, or inappropriately directed exuberance within those halls that house the offices of people tasked with public trust. With an event of such magnitude and the apparent catastrophic failure of systems intended to prevent such a thing, it's not crazy to desire accountability.

And there is crux of my point. The poison that has resulted from the bastard marriage of activism and conspiracy has created a "hands off" zone where the journalists I've spoken with, desire not to go. In the grand scheme of things, if "something" prosecutable were to be found, you'd call it a scandal (or similar) and we would call it a conspiracy.

This is because you are compulsively ambiguous, then simply tell us what your position is NOT. This makes it hard to find your position, and when you won't tell us, we draw our own conclusions. Look how long it took you to give us the statement discussed above...

Consider some snippets of my first few posts in this thread...
"I've seen a lot of misconceptions about "conspiracy theorists" (sometimes we're our own worst enemy) and hope I can help to at least shed some rational light on the subject."
"Let's be honest, many of the people actively involved in "9/11 Truth" would be out protesting the World Bank or similar issues if not for 9/11 and the Iraq war. These people are not conspiracy theorists, they're anti-establishment activists who have latched onto a conspiracy-driven issue."
My position has been consistent... the "truth movement" are not conspiracy theorists and has harmed any hope of the involvement of investigative journalism as it relates to the "non-conspiracy details of 9/11" you mentioned (but which may actually be conspiracies on their own).


What we seem to have here is a kind of Tourette syndrome... any time anyone brings up a 9/11 related issue, the JREF member convulses and says "twoofer BS," while the "truther" convulses and says "inside job!" Head, tails. Ying, yang. Pot, the kettle really is black.

 

[Sporanox]

I opened with "nice" because you mentioned the secret prisons and wiretapping. Now, certainly these issues are scandalous by some measure here in this fora, and certainly contain levels of malfeasance from individuals tasked with public trust. By the same token, for those who speculate of conspiracies, these acts fit the standard definition.

Not sure if they're conspiracies - if you define a conspiracy theory as an alternate explanation of a widely recognized event - but of course, the point is that like other scandalous government acts of note, they were uncovered shortly after their implementation.

At the risk of the sound of a thousand JREF jerking knees, consider what important items might be discovered in similar fashion as those examples of yours as related to the events of 9/11. No need to invoke the term "conspiracy," there is only the need to consider wrong-doing, gross negligence, or inappropriately directed exuberance within those halls that house the offices of people tasked with public trust. With an event of such magnitude and the apparent catastrophic failure of systems intended to prevent such a thing, it's not crazy to desire accountability.

Those things have already been addressed, more deeply than most laymen could hope to, by the 9/11 Commission and the mainstream media. We've heard all about the ignorance and misdirection of intelligence, the failed opportunities to take Osama bin Laden to task, the disastrous eagerness to jump into war in Iraq without planning first, and a host of other government screwups. And they will continue to be addressed if there is evidence to suspect wrongdoing.

The sticking point is that before any of these things could be considered, there first had to be evidence and expert testimony. Without these, there can be no case, and casual accusation is ridiculous.

My position has been pretty consistent... the "truth movement" are not conspiracy theorists and has harmed any hope of the involvement of investigative journalism as it relates to the "non-conspiracy details of 9/11" you mentioned (but which may actually be conspiracies on their own).

This is exactly what we're talking about. You've told us all about your view of the truth movement's state and beliefs, but trying to figure out YOUR beliefs was - and maybe still is - pretty hard. With all the shifting it took you to get to this point, it's easy to see how some people thought you had truther ideology to hide.

 

[SkepticGuy]

Those things have already been addressed, more deeply than most laymen could hope to, by the 9/11 Commission and the mainstream media.

Dude... that was a JREF (or debunker) Tourette. We don't know what "those things" are or might be... that's my point. For a moment, negate everything ever said by the "truth movement" and consider it off-limits... there would still be avenues of investigation that would attracted talented journalists.

it's easy to see how some people thought you had truther ideology to hide

And maybe I'm too accustomed to never being considered a "truther," and in fact, occasionally a target of their ire.

 

[Sporanox]

Dude... that was a JREF (or debunker) Tourette. We don't know what "those things" are or might be... that's my point.

My point was that it is ridiculous to suspect the government of further wrongdoing unless you have strong evidence/the media has come out with strong evidence. Hence why most conspiracies should not be given the light of day. Otherwise, we have a case of DUDE, where's my evidence?

And maybe I'm too accustomed to never being considered a "truther," and in fact, occasionally a target of their ire.

Maybe.

 

[Gravy]

And herein is the problem exhibited by the group-think inspired jerking of knees experienced here... if one where to consider looking into anything 9/11 related the intense derision and "twoofer" accusations fly like schlag on the cheese cake at Peter Lugar's.

100% bullcrap. Many of us have spent a significant amount of our lives looking into things 9/11 related, and have expressed our dissatisfaction with portions of the "official" investigations. Further, every day we encourage truthers to thoroughly investigate their own claims, but they're always too busy whining on internet forums to get around to it.

Oh, and it's Luger, and anyone who has room for cheesecake after their steak and creamed spinach isn't worthy of darkening its doorway.

 

[AZCat]

100% bullcrap. Many of us have spent a significant amount of our lives looking into things 9/11 related, and have expressed our dissatisfaction with portions of the "official" investigations. Further, every day we encourage truthers to thoroughly investigate their own claims, but they're always too busy whining on internet forums to get around to it.

Oh, and it's Luger, and anyone who has room for cheesecake after their steak and creamed spinach isn't worthy of darkening its doorway.

I have no idea who this Peter Luger guy is and why you're eating his food, but your first point is the one most frequently missed by truthers about those of us who so frequently clash with them. They seem to live in a binary world where those who don't buy their worldview 100% must be cheerleaders for the "official story" (whatever that is) rather than critical consumers of information who have decided that the 9/11 Commission and the NIST performed acceptably considering the constraints placed upon their respective investigations.

 

[Gravy]

I have no idea who this Peter Luger guy is and why you're eating his food, but your first point is the one most frequently missed by truthers about those of us who so frequently clash with them. They seem to live in a binary world where those who don't buy their worldview 100% must be cheerleaders for the "official story" (whatever that is) rather than critical consumers of information who have decided that the 9/11 Commission and the NIST performed acceptably considering the constraints placed upon their respective investigations.

I can't tell you how much it burns me up when people claim that those of us who care about getting things right are somehow interfering with their ability to research. What a pathetic excuse for incompetence.

I also think poorly of the truther implication that journalists the world over, opposition politicians, and many ambitious district attorneys, wouldn't give their left arms for hard evidence of high crimes committed by the Bush administration (or by anyone else, for that matter) relating to 9/11. There's a reason that Woodward and Bernstein are still on a very short list of recognizable names in print journalism to Americans.