....its like watching Edward Norton during the reveal of Fight Club. Please stop hitting yourself in the face.
since edited to...
And just when it looked like you were making a reasonable requestion for clarification.
When people with disparate views and socio-political goals share an interest in a single subject it is generally not enough to class them all as members of the same movement and yet that is what is done constantly on these forums. While there are groups whose sole focus is 9/11 truth there are many others for which those issues are only peripheral to wider concerns. Despite this, all are classed within these forums as part of some all-encompassing movement. I've made the point elsewhere that the majority of people have views that straddle the divide and it is blatantly foolish to seek to create and then reinforce perceptions of a division, but many here seem to prefer a black and white take on things. It does very little to add to the perception of such people as rational or critical thinkers.
(refering to Ruppert, Peter Dale Scott, Nafeez Ahmed and Michel Chossudovsky, etc.)
Apart from further displaying that prominent 'debunkers' have little to no awareness of the actual roots of the 'movement' they critique and base their views on the groups of people they came into contact with long after the push for independent enquiry into the events of 9/11 began (unless Roberts was refering to the Loose Change 2001 edition) its hardly surprising that the people here quote Alex Jones or LC to a much greater extent than the far more diligent scholars who actually dominate the field. The level of sincere, open-minded, critical discussion on display here is negligible and those seeking it must surely be better served elsewhere. Thankfully it took me less than two weeks to realise this fact.
Its a little sad to see people who are evidently intellectually capable, dedicating so much time and effort to chipping away at arguments that remain sidelines to the only truly important CT, i.e. whether the attacks were instigated or allowed to happen by the US government. At its minimum scope this CT requires the collusion of only a few dozen individuals, has no bearing on the actual events of 9/11 itself (and thus 99.9% of things discussed here) and, as yet, has no hard evidence either way. The circumstantial evidence is more than enough to justify further investigation of the Bush Administration, PNAC and the role of the intelligence services and yet regardless of the fact that this CT cannot be debunked by you (innocent until proven guilty is the only strong argument), you continue to group all who question the official version of events into a single body and do your best to belittle and denigrate them as a whole.
I'm unsure what pleasures you get from attacking CTs about the collapse of the towers or cell phones . Maybe many (though clearly not all) of you do it out of an honest sense of service to the truth and I'm am sincerely appreciative of those who are selfless in their pursuit of rational analysis of the several incidents which, at least initially, struck many as bizarre oddities or who seek to put an end to inaccurate nonsense (or well-intentioned but flawed CTs). As such I'll continue, for a while at least, to read threads here outlining the errors in DRG's thinking or the contradictory claims of Willy Rodriguez. At the same time, many here seem deliberately set on creating a wholly false dichotomy that not only leaves anyone with a truly open mind caught between two opposing factions of dogmatic zealots. It also reflects poorly on the forum as a whole and its claim to be a home to critical thinking.
Its very easy to recognize a man convinced of the utter veracity of his views. Such people do not often attract the interest of those seeking honest discourse and, when it does happen, it is generally not long before the wiser man departs, leaving the other to pontificate from their soapbox in peace.
This isn't a characterization of the forum as a whole, just what seems to be its worst element.
...
