Is it now time to remove the 9/11 Conspiracy sub-forum from JREF?

[cantonear1968]

I don't know if this warrants a separate thread or not. I thought about posting this in Ryan Mackey's "Lost in Space" thread, but just didn't feel it was the proper subject for that OP. I'll let the mods and others decide if it is worth yet another thread on 9/11.

A month and half ago I took a break from posting about this subject. However, that didn't mean I gave up looking in on both JREF and youtube comments. For 2 weeks I followed what was going on until I hit a point that I realized it wasn't really letting go. So I decided to try a little social experiment: what relevance does 9/11 Conspiracy have in the real world? I decided to go a whole month without visiting any blog sites on this subject and count how many times the subject of 9/11 conspiracy, and specifically conspiracy, came up (I came to this idea about 30 days into Mackey's 60 day countdown, and felt that would be a suitable time frame to conduct this experiment. Thus the connection to his thread).

However, I needed something as a control to compete against 9/11 Conspiracy theories. Something to compare the results with in the "real world". I needed something that would be comparable and a fair representation of something that would be reported in the "real world". So what I came up with was.....

Britney Spears!

I figured she was a close representation of the level of exposure as the truth movement: most people consider her bat-**** crazy, her career peaked around 2006 and she's desperately trying to hold on to whatever relevancy she had!

So the competition is how many times I hear a story about Britney Spears versus 9/11 Conspiracy. And the results are .......

11-1 Britney!

(the only reference to 9/11 Conspiracy I came across was the avatar of a person blogging on the Anthony Weiner story on CNN.com of the cut columns with the firefighter in the foreground that I am sure everyone is familiar with. Everyone, that is, that is familiar with this subject. I leave it up to the reader to decide if this really counts, because if you are not familiar with this subject, it would mean nothing to you.)

That was it. Nothing about nanothermite. Nothing about free fall. Nothing about "stand down". 9/11 Conspiracy does not exist outside of select blogger sites on the internet. People are not "waking up". The "truth" is not exploding. It exists only within a small circle of what RKOwens has so accurately described as "angry young men". And, as I have (facetiously) scientifically proven, a very small circle it is!

So looking at Ryan's "Lost In Space" thread, I see there is nothing new to report on coming from the truth movement. There is no new evidence that has not already been addressed ad nauseum and put to bed. Oh sure, tomorrow there will be some sort of new anomaly brought forth about the time frame revolving around when NEADS responded on 9/11. Or another cockpit door found "opened" for the whole flight. Or another phone call from the planes that "just doesn't seem right".

But there will be nothing that fits into a full fledged narrative of an "inside job" scenario that even comes close to explaining 9/11 other than the simplest explanation: hijackers, planes, fire!

The 9/11 truth movement is not simply dead, it is non-existent! It never was. There was a sizable group of people who signed on as truthers, but that, more than anything, was anti-Bush sentiments spilling out as "9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB".
(sure that's a completely unsubstantiated statement that is only substantiated by the complete lack of truther interest since Bush left office!). So I support what was once brought up here that JREF no longer needs an entire sub topic thread on 9/11. There is nothing that cannot be handled in the "Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread" under the "Conspiracy Theories" topic. I and Britney Spears have proven this!

This will be the last thread on 9/11 I actually start.

 

[Bobert]

2 years ago this subforum should have been closed

 

[Oystein]

Hehe excellent test, running against Ms. Spears

A couple of comments though:

...So I decided to try a little social experiment: what relevance does 9/11 Conspiracy have in the real world? I decided to go a whole month without visiting any blog sites on this subject and count how many times the subject of 9/11 conspiracy, and specifically conspiracy, came up...

Did you count how often any other CTs came up? Is there any use for the entire CT subforum?

However, I needed something as a control to compete against 9/11 Conspiracy theories. Something to compare the results with in the "real world". I needed something that would be comparable and a fair representation of something that would be reported in the "real world". So what I came up with was.....

Britney Spears!

I figured she was a close representation of the level of exposure as the truth movement: most people consider her bat-**** crazy, her career peaked around 2006 and she's desperately trying to hold on to whatever relevancy she had!

True, but there is a huge difference or two:
- Spears is entertainment and both her music and her private troubles appeal to and interest wide portions of the general population, including (and perhaps especially) the less educated and politically less interested. Britney creates herself as sexy, and sex sells. 9/11 on the other hand doesn't orchestrate itself any longer (it's a past event, not a person), and the implications are political, which limits its sexiness and general appeal. (Ok, horror sells, too)
- Britney Spears is a brand, a product, something that is actually marketed with the primary goal of making money. There are large companies with a vested interest in keeping Britney in the media. This is not quite as true with the Twoof movement. They try to market and sell a bit here and there, but there is no real product. At least not since Loose Change faded out of the limelight (9/11 truth wasn't the product - the film was, its entertainment value). And there is no corporate interest.

So the competition is how many times I hear a story about Britney Spears versus 9/11 Conspiracy. And the results are .......

11-1 Britney!

She may be 11 times as visible, but is she as relevant? Suppose there was some actual truth to 9/11 twoof. Would that not be at least, say, 11 times as important as Britney? Then the 2 would be on par.




Also, you are arguing that the 9/11 subforum at JREF should be dissolved, because the topic lacks popular visibility and appeal. However, the JREF forums are full of topics and even subfora that aren't exactly mainstream. And it'sgood that we have this oasis to debate topics we deem interesting and relevant, even though they hardly appear in other media.



Apart from these thought, I am for keeping the 9/11 subforum on purely practical grounds: Because we, here at JREF, are still interested in it. It still generates enough new threads and enough replies to disrupt any other forum that the topic might be merged with.
Plus, it is possibly the #1, the best debunking forum out there.

 

[rjh01]

Can I contribute this thread? The 9/11 Conspiracy section All 177 posts worth.

 

[Athyrio]

Maybe a new poll should be conducted?

 

[NoahFence]

I'm game.

 

[cantonear1968]

Hehe excellent test, running against Ms. Spears

A couple of comments though:



Did you count how often any other CTs came up? Is there any use for the entire CT subforum?



True, but there is a huge difference or two:
- Spears is entertainment and both her music and her private troubles appeal to and interest wide portions of the general population, including (and perhaps especially) the less educated and politically less interested. Britney creates herself as sexy, and sex sells. 9/11 on the other hand doesn't orchestrate itself any longer (it's a past event, not a person), and the implications are political, which limits its sexiness and general appeal. (Ok, horror sells, too)
- Britney Spears is a brand, a product, something that is actually marketed with the primary goal of making money. There are large companies with a vested interest in keeping Britney in the media. This is not quite as true with the Twoof movement. They try to market and sell a bit here and there, but there is no real product. At least not since Loose Change faded out of the limelight (9/11 truth wasn't the product - the film was, its entertainment value). And there is no corporate interest.



She may be 11 times as visible, but is she as relevant? Suppose there was some actual truth to 9/11 twoof. Would that not be at least, say, 11 times as important as Britney? Then the 2 would be on par.




Also, you are arguing that the 9/11 subforum at JREF should be dissolved, because the topic lacks popular visibility and appeal. However, the JREF forums are full of topics and even subfora that aren't exactly mainstream. And it'sgood that we have this oasis to debate topics we deem interesting and relevant, even though they hardly appear in other media.



Apart from these thought, I am for keeping the 9/11 subforum on purely practical grounds: Because we, here at JREF, are still interested in it. It still generates enough new threads and enough replies to disrupt any other forum that the topic might be merged with.
Plus, it is possibly the #1, the best debunking forum out there.

Oystein, all very good points. And I apologize if the thread title and subsequent comments came across more poignant than facetious, which is how I intended it. I understand the desire to come on here and discuss truther points; it took a lot of willpower on several occasions not to log on a see what was going on.

However, it wasn't so much to prove the relevancy of Britney Spears or any other conspiracy theory. It was to show the irrelevancy of the truth movement outside of the ones and zeros of a small corner of the internet. My "experiment" didn't prove that Britney Spears is eleven times more popular than 9/11 Truth; it shows that 9/11 Truth is non-existent outside of a very small subset of the population. With the credibility and acceptance of UFO watchers and moon hoaxers. That, as I stated, people are not "waking up" everyday, as is the common call through internet posters. That, in fact, 9/11 Truth does not even register as a blip on the everyday lives of ordinary citizens and is declining every day (as shown by visits to traditional 9/11 discussion forums).

Look at Ryan's "Lost in Space" thread. Sixty days and not one piece of new evidence posted! They are quite content to re-hash old news that has already been addressed on several occasions and shown to be false at best and fallacious at worst! And some present this as if it's the first time it's ever been addressed! Like they just found the Holy Grail that everyone's been waiting for to blow the lid off 9/11! If I have another poster respond with "What about Building 7?", as if THAT is some argument ender, I'm going to go postal!

So, Oystein, I sincerely apologize if the thread title started more than I meant it to. That was not the point of my post nor am I truly advocating the removal of this sub-forum. Believe me, I, personally, am well aware of the importance of this forum as an information resource against 9/11 Truthers. But going away from this topic for 45 days, and coming back to see the exact same arguments being presented when I turned it off, leads me to conclude how ineffective the Truth movement has been at becoming a movement at all. In all aspects of what defines a movement, Truthers have failed on all counts.

 

[Drudgewire]

Oh come on, we've got the 10 year anniversary coming up. There's about to be all kinds of lunacy to make fun of.

 

[Oystein]

...
So, Oystein, I sincerely apologize if the thread title started more than I meant it to. That was not the point of my post nor am I truly advocating the removal of this sub-forum. Believe me, I, personally, am well aware of the importance of this forum as an information resource against 9/11 Truthers. But going away from this topic for 45 days, and coming back to see the exact same arguments being presented when I turned it off, leads me to conclude how ineffective the Truth movement has been at becoming a movement at all. In all aspects of what defines a movement, Truthers have failed on all counts.

Aww, no need to apologize, no harm done

...
However, it wasn't so much to prove the relevancy of Britney Spears or any other conspiracy theory. It was to show the irrelevancy of the truth movement outside of the ones and zeros of a small corner of the internet. My "experiment" didn't prove that Britney Spears is eleven times more popular than 9/11 Truth; ...

Hmm actually, I disagree: I think you did show that Britney is (at least) 11 times more popular as a media topic than 9/11 truth! And yes, that is an indication that the "movement" is pretty dead.
However this measurement says little about the relevance of the topic! I am sure that somwhere some hot and highly relevant political decisions are being pondered right now that you haven't seen anywhere in the media in the past 45 days, maybe because they are kept under the carpet by the powers that be, maybe because their implications are so ephemeral that no one has realized and publicized them yet.
I guess it depends a little on your definition of "relevant", though


(Also, I agree that the twoof movement is in fact irrelevant; it would be even if it was more popular. It is irrelevant because its claims are untrue, and its demands won't be met. However, if there was even a significant probability that at least some of their claims are true, then they would be very relevant in terms of what ought to happen)

 

[cantonear1968]

Aww, no need to apologize, no harm done



Hmm actually, I disagree: I think you did show that Britney is (at least) 11 times more popular as a media topic than 9/11 truth! And yes, that is an indication that the "movement" is pretty dead.
However this measurement says little about the relevance of the topic! I am sure that somwhere some hot and highly relevant political decisions are being pondered right now that you haven't seen anywhere in the media in the past 45 days, maybe because they are kept under the carpet by the powers that be, maybe because their implications are so ephemeral that no one has realized and publicized them yet.I guess it depends a little on your definition of "relevant", though


(Also, I agree that the twoof movement is in fact irrelevant; it would be even if it was more popular. It is irrelevant because its claims are untrue, and its demands won't be met. However, if there was even a significant probability that at least some of their claims are true, then they would be very relevant in terms of what ought to happen)

But that is a different scenario than the Truth movement who is supposedly actively pursuing relevancy by presenting their "evidence". It is not their desire to be "kept under the carpet" and are quite vocal about how people are "waking up". Simply not true. The point of the matter, is if there was ANYTHING to 9/11 Truth, there WOULD BE news stories on it. What I am confident in stating is, several very good investigative journalists have looked very hard at this, and found nothing that warrants a story on the subject. That 9/11 is what it is: hijackers, planes, fire!

On this note, I will take a step back from my own thread and highlight one time that 9/11 Truth was spotlighted in the media and that was Ventura's recent tour promoting his new book. The subject of 9/11 Conspiracy, of course, came up at that time. I stopped to watch him when he was on Joy Behar and I know he was with George Stephanopoulos. What maddens me is how little these interviewers know about this subject, because Jesse would make standard truther claims ("Bin Laden not on the FBI Most Wanted List"), and they would have no rebuttal. At the same time, that may be a good indication that it is not a subject worth their time to investigate every last nuance within the topic!

 

[excaza]

It's not like any new arguments are being made, it's just constant rehashing of the same thing over and over and over and over again.

 

[cantonear1968]

Aww, no need to apologize, no harm done



Hmm actually, I disagree: I think you did show that Britney is (at least) 11 times more popular as a media topic than 9/11 truth! And yes, that is an indication that the "movement" is pretty dead.
However this measurement says little about the relevance of the topic! I am sure that somwhere some hot and highly relevant political decisions are being pondered right now that you haven't seen anywhere in the media in the past 45 days, maybe because they are kept under the carpet by the powers that be, maybe because their implications are so ephemeral that no one has realized and publicized them yet.I guess it depends a little on your definition of "relevant", though


(Also, I agree that the twoof movement is in fact irrelevant; it would be even if it was more popular. It is irrelevant because its claims are untrue, and its demands won't be met. However, if there was even a significant probability that at least some of their claims are true, then they would be very relevant in terms of what ought to happen)

But that is a different scenario than the Truth movement who is supposedly actively pursuing relevancy by presenting their "evidence". It is not their desire to be "kept under the carpet" and are quite vocal about how people are "waking up". Simply not true. The point of the matter, is if there was ANYTHING to 9/11 Truth, there WOULD BE news stories on it. What I am confident in stating is, several very good investigative journalists have looked very hard at this, and found nothing that warrants a story on the subject. That 9/11 is what it is: hijackers, planes, fire.

On this note, I will take a step back from my own thread and highlight one time that 9/11 Truth was spotlighted in the media and that was Ventura's recent tour promoting his new book. The subject of 9/11 Conspiracy, of course, came up at that time. I stopped to watch him when he was on Joy Behar and I know he was with George Stephanopoulos. What maddens me is how little these interviewers know about this subject, because Jesse would make standard truther claims ("Bin Laden not on the FBI Most Wanted List"), and they would have no rebuttal. At the same time, that may be a good indication that it is not a subject worth their time to investigate every last nuance within the topic!

 

[cantonear1968]

Sorry for the double post. My forum connection was going hinky and I didn't realize the first one went through.

 

[cantonear1968]

It's not like any new arguments are being made, it's just constant rehashing of the same thing over and over and over and over again.

Exactly my point!

ElMondo put it best when he stated we shouldn't even respond anymore. Just post links to past discussions when it was first presented!

 

[cantonear1968]

Oh come on, we've got the 10 year anniversary coming up. There's about to be all kinds of lunacy to make fun of.

Again, my point! Yes, I can imagine there will be lots of media attention given to the protests at GZ that are bound to happen on the 10th anniversary. But as you point out, that will be on the "lunacy" of their claims, not the relevancy or accuracy of their claims.

The bottom line is that the Truth movement is not a movement at all, and as I previously stated, it probably never was. It is not gaining relevancy or popularity, as is so often the truther claim, and is in fact quite the opposite. Truthers are permanently stuck in 2006 (although a brief awakening in 2008 with the Harrit/Jones paper), and one could shut it off for another 10 years and come back to exactly the same arguments: "free fall", "nanothermite" and "stand down". As a MOVEMENT, they have ceased to move forward.

 

[Edx]

NO

I disagree it should be removed/moved back to the CT main forum. This forum still gets lots of new threads everyday and is still extremely popuar, moving it back to CT will clutter up that forum. Why?

 

[cantonear1968]

A last thought that just occurred to me. I think this thread is an indication of where debunkers are going. With no new evidence to pick over or investigate, we (or at least I) have turned our (my) attention more to discussing the death of the Truth movement than anything they present as evidence. Simply because, at this juncture, virtually everything that can be presented, has been presented, and addressed ad nauseum! Virtually every new thread that is opened on this forum could simply be responded to with a link to a thread from 3 years ago and be over on the second post! That leaves us discussing more and more the psychology, the relevancy or the life signs of truthers and the truth movement!

 

[cantonear1968]

NO

I disagree it should be removed/moved back to the CT main forum. This forum still gets lots of new threads everyday and is still extremely popuar, moving it back to CT will clutter up that forum. Why?

Post #10.

 

[excaza]

Post #10.

Does nothing to counter Edx's (valid) point that closing the forum will not stop the threads. They will just get posted to the general conspiracy theories board and clutter it up completely.

Unless the mods prohibit posting about 9/11 (and people will go bananas about The Man keeping them down), or limit to a few stickied threads (again, bananas, and those threads will be steaming piles of doo-doo very quickly), it's not going to change.

Hence, the separation is appropriate.

 

[cantonear1968]

Does nothing to counter Edx's (valid) point that closing the forum will not stop the threads. They will just get posted to the general conspiracy theories board and clutter it up completely.

Unless the mods prohibit posting about 9/11 (and people will go bananas about The Man keeping them down), or limit to a few stickied threads (again, bananas, and those threads will be steaming piles of doo-doo very quickly), it's not going to change.

Hence, the separation is appropriate.

Again, post #10. The title was meant facetiously, and as I state clearly in post #10 "nor am I truly advocating the removal of this sub-forum".