Hello JREF, I bring you "Tin Foil"!

[8den]

I think you missed my point. There is a world of difference between "covering" the madness of "9/11 Truth" and considering an independent angle of investigation unrelated to the pet theories of the "truthers."

Really and what aspect of the offical story do journalists find most interesting?

Hotel Gansevoort roof lounge. Everything from senior producers & talent to "in the trenches" reporters as well as a few "conspiracy-minded" celebrities. If you listened to 1010 WINS in NYC that day, our site and the event was covered once-an-hour (with no mention of 9/11, sorry).

You can't give me the name of the event?

 

[SkepticGuy]

You can't give me the name of the event?

The press release
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/abovetopsecret_anniversary_gala_and_revolution.html
The teaser videos
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread311809/pg1

 

[SkepticGuy]

Really and what aspect of the offical story do journalists find most interesting?

I don't recall anything related to the "official story" or any other "truther mythology." Most conversations were centered around "it would be interesting to look into what happened in August of 2001," or "I'd like to examine the speed-to-suspects issue a little more" and similar. The general feeling is that "higher-up" programming directors or editors would kill the concept out of concern for seeming to have affinity for "those nuts at ground zero."

 

[8den]

I don't recall anything related to the "official story" or any other "truther mythology." Most conversations were centered around "it would be interesting to look into what happened in August of 2001," or "I'd like to examine the speed-to-suspects issue a little more" and similar. The general feeling is that "higher-up" programming directors or editors would kill the concept out of concern for seeming to have affinity for "those nuts at ground zero."

I'm sorry but crap. I've never heard a journalist even acknowledge the "truth movement"'s existance. And if there was a genuine, real, plausible story, backed up with facts, I cannot believe a single journalist would walk away from it, because of Judy Woods or David Ray Griffin.

You had, maybe, at best, someone from some organisation make polite chit chat, and got fed some platitudes, as they ate your nibbles.

 

[SkepticGuy]

I'm sorry but crap.

Back atcha'

I've never heard a journalist even acknowledge the "truth movement"'s existance.

And The Washington Post on the internet phenomenon of the "truth movement".

I'm confused now. First you said the media covered the "movement," now you're saying journalists won't acknowledge it? Which is it?

Unfortunately you don't have the benefit of being part of these conversations, so your natural proclivity to disbelieve anything that comes out of the mouth of someone who speaks of "conspiracy theories" is taking over.

 

[8den]

Back atcha'

If you're going to obfuscation and refuse to draw out what specific elements aside from muttering something about "speed to suspects", you'll recieve short shrift from me.

I'm confused now. First you said the media covered the "movement," now you're saying journalists won't acknowledge it? Which is it?

By journalists, I meant journalists who I work with.

I don't suppose you have photos of this event, perhaps pointing out who these journalists and media types are?

Unfortunately you don't have the benefit of being part of these
conversations, so your natural proclivity to disbelieve anything that comes out of the mouth of someone who speaks of "conspiracy theories" is taking over.

If you were to highlight some of the actual specific points and nail your colours to the mast it would help.

 

[SkepticGuy]

If you're going to obfuscation and refuse to...

I was merely tossing the hand-wave insult back at you. If you want to highlight obfuscation, your statement "I've never heard a journalist even acknowledge the 'truth movement's' existance," seems rather definitive in the attempt to dismiss (a small portion) of what I've been saying. In fact, in away it ideologically confirms much of what I've said on the subject, yet you choose to perpetuate the argument for argument's sake. (shrug)

Over the years we've built an affinity with several people in various levels of "the media" from on-air CNN talent to beat reporters of local newspapers. Just as you would be reluctant to share the specifics of candid conversations with such people, so are we. Only a percentage of these conversations end up touching on 9/11 subjects, and when they do, we see the pattern of responses I've described. I'm sorry that puts you in the position of considering if you accept this at face-value, but it is what it is.

 

[8den]

I was merely tossing the hand-wave insult back at you. If you want to highlight obfuscation, your statement "I've never heard a journalist even acknowledge the 'truth movement's' existance," seems rather definitive in the attempt to dismiss (a small portion) of what I've been saying. In fact, in away it ideologically confirms much of what I've said on the subject, yet you choose to perpetuate the argument for argument's sake. (shrug)

Over the years we've built an affinity with several people in various levels of "the media" from on-air CNN talent to beat reporters of local newspapers. Just as you would be reluctant to share the specifics of candid conversations with such people, so are we. Only a percentage of these conversations end up touching on 9/11 subjects, and when they do, we see the pattern of responses I've described. I'm sorry that puts you in the position of considering if you accept this at face-value, but it is what it is.

translation; "I got denadda."

Sorry mate I've looked at the trooth movement, and nothing of Griffin and Jones, or anthing else of the conjecture and speculation of the truth movement is worth anything of genuine journalists time and energy.

You've got a inability to come forward and mention the specifics of points these people agreed with you on, I mean this is your original claiml

I've had the opportunity to speak with several in the media, both "in the trenches" and higher editorial levels, and there is a unanimous desire to stay far away of anything that could be associated with "9/11 Truth." The angry activist style of the "truthers" have so polluted the landscape, that journalists stay as far away as they can.

So in the origin of your claims you say that no one wants to touch 9/11 truth?

Heres th thing I've worked with Alan Johnston the BBC kidnapped and threatened with death, I've worked with journalists who have faced death, and danger in a persuit of story.

I've never once met a journalist on a real story annoyed that they are going to look stupid, provided they were confident of the facts.

Skepticguy you can claim that "loads of journalists" are "sympathetic and agree with us" as much as you want, until you name the names of these journalists, and more importantly actually come out with what facts they have and the evidence that supports these facts. You will be just talking crap and dismissed as a another fool.

You're eight pages in and have yet to make a credible specific point.

 

[SkepticGuy]

Sorry mate I've looked at the trooth movement, and nothing of Griffin and Jones, or anthing else of the conjecture and speculation of the truth movement is worth anything of genuine journalists time and energy.

You're using a different arrangement of syntax and words to say essentially what I've related... yet use it in an attempt to spark an argument. WTF?

Skepticguy you can claim that "loads of journalists" are "sympathetic and agree with us"

8den, you can assume I made such a claim as your basis for continuing an argument, but I made no such claim. For two posts now you've been arguing with yourself... is there a point?

 

[8den]

You're using a different arrangement of syntax and words to say essentially what I've related... yet use it in an attempt to spark an argument. WTF?



8den, you can assume I made such a claim as your basis for continuing an argument, but I made no such claim. For two posts now you've been arguing with yourself... is there a point?

Mate you've been going on for two pages now citing media groups who agree with you, without saying specifically what they agree with you on, or who they are.

I'm calling Emperor's new clothes here. Make a point. Say who agrees with you on this point

Edited by chillzero: 

Please use language more appropriate to the public section of the forum

 

[SkepticGuy]

Mate you've been going on for two pages now citing media groups who agree with you,

In which posts do you read that?

 

[Sporanox]

In which posts do you read that?

I believe what you said is that journalists are sensitive/sympathetic to a few "inconsistencies" relating to 9/11 - which are not part of the twoof movement as it is now. That was my impression.

If it's not correct, then could you please tell us exactly WHAT are these journalists sympathetic to? You have to actually tell us instead of just telling us what it's not. I don't know if the examples provided actually amount to a real interest in re-investigating 9/11 - I don't know if they were simply speculative like your 9/11 LIHOP. This isn't a game of I-spy...

-Sporanox

 

[SkepticGuy]

I believe what you said is that journalists are sensitive/sympathetic to a few "inconsistencies" relating to 9/11

Never said any such thing.

If it's not correct, then could you please tell us exactly WHAT are these journalists sympathetic to?

Unknown. As I mentioned, there was no desire to discuss 9/11 because of the "truthers" ... UFO's on the other hand, they love that.

 

[Sporanox]

Never said any such thing.

I don't recall anything related to the "official story" or any other "truther mythology." Most conversations were centered around "it would be interesting to look into what happened in August of 2001," or "I'd like to examine the speed-to-suspects issue a little more" and similar. The general feeling is that "higher-up" programming directors or editors would kill the concept out of concern for seeming to have affinity for "those nuts at ground zero."

Do these seem like 9/11 inconsistencies to you (remember, not truther pet theories)? Because if so you're saying that some journalists have interests in them.

If they are not, then there would never be media support for conspiracy claims no matter what freedoms executives gave reporters. So there would be more evidence that there is nothing behind the CTs...

-Sporanox

 

[Skeptic Guy]

There's an overwhelming amount of historical information that either doesn't make it into general awareness, or has simply been forgotten. In many cases, much of that "forgotten" data provides a multitude of information for those looking into the connectivity of the historical influences that provide a backdrop for contemporary conspiracy research.

If, like one poster here, you assume all conspiracy research and speculation is a mere contrivance, you're ignoring what history has proven -- there have been "conspiracies" that have been covered up. For example, right now we're converting Clifford Stone's vast archive of FOIA documents... some of which provide overviews of the analysis of captured space vessels of extraterrestrial origin. We're making sure we get this up in a way that maintains a "chain of evidence."

Bolding mine.

Please, please understand that SkepticGuy and Skeptic Guy are two different people.

That is all.

 

[SkepticGuy]

Do these seem like 9/11 inconsistencies to you

More like general questions. In the context of the previous question here, the point always seemed to be "truther" styled "inconsistencies." Those two points were as close as I've ever gotten to the 9/11subject... which then quickly moved to "so what about the latest UFO..." But I never considered such limited curiosity to be "sympathetic."

 

[LashL]

Are you one of those people who thinks that never taking a position on anything, despite all manner of evidence one way or another, somehow makes you a skeptic? Here's a hint: it doesn't. Skepticism is not about ignoring evidence, but about assessing evidence intelligently.

 

[tomwaits]

SkepticGuy....I like you. You aren't just a truther sock or anything of that nature, you seem to be a pretty open-minded and all around nice guy.

However, every post I see from you amounts to **vague speculation** and then **backpedal backpedal backpedal...**. You will need to do better than that to make an impression here.

 

[8den]

SkepticGuy....I like you. You aren't just a truther sock or anything of that nature, you seem to be a pretty open-minded and all around nice guy.

However, every post I see from you amounts to **vague speculation** and then **backpedal backpedal backpedal...**. You will need to do better than that to make an impression here.

Ditto, while he may not like the moniker "conspiracy theorists" he's easily the most pleasant and polite conspiracy theorist to arrive on this forum. His maddening refusal to present anything approximating a position or coherent factual position withstanding.

For example
Skepticguy claims journalists and media executives turned up at meeting/event with him, where they, 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.

Yet when challenged on this he has refused to clarify what specifics these individuals were interested in.

It's literally the worst argument from authority I've ever seen.

Skepticguy you are Lance Armstrong of backpeddling.

 

[Sporanox]

More like general questions. In the context of the previous question here, the point always seemed to be "truther" styled "inconsistencies." Those two points were as close as I've ever gotten to the 9/11subject... which then quickly moved to "so what about the latest UFO..." But I never considered such limited curiosity to be "sympathetic."

So, in other words, they never doubted the official story.