Unbelievable.
- Thread starter TJM
- Start date
HighRiser
Graduate Poster
I might be tempted to make several 1/2 sheet signs with the link to this forum's subsection on 9-11 conspiracy theories and hang them with a loop of string over the ad placard. String because it won't do any harm or add clean-up manhours to BART's budget, as a sharpie or tape would.
^This.
Offended? Why?
"You're out"? Why?
Because someone informed you about something you didn't know?
Now that you know that 3 50+ story skyscrapers were brought down... how does that make you feel.?
Whilst I understand the offensiveness of these liars advertising in this way I think Spanx is on target.
No reasonable, rational, honest person will be fooled by these CT's. They will simply reinforce the common understanding that they are at best deluded fools and, at somewhat worse, deliberate liars.
For that significant part of the community demography that is unaware of 9/11 conspiracy the overwhelming majority response will be "What are these nut jobs on about??"" OR similar
Interesting choice of words..
Do a search for this paper.. (I would add the link, but I'm too fresh here..)
"New studies: ‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane, while government dupes are crazy and hostile"
Enjoy
Reactor drone
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,214
Last time I checked 47 was less than 50.
I assume this is the link you are talking about ?
http://conspiracypsych.com/2013/07/13/setting-the-record-straight-on-wood-douglas-2013/
ozeco41
Philosopher
The choice was deliberate and accurate.
Old news - I was aware of the paper but it is not relevant to my statement.
The central issue of the AE911 strategy is the false technical claim that there was CD involved in the 9/11 WTC collapses. That claim is false.
So the three parts of my previous comment - in reversed order - are:
1) that "No reasonable, rational, honest person will be fooled by these CT's." where the CT referenced is the claim for CD of WTC 7. That statement is true.
2) "They will simply reinforce the common understanding that they are at best deluded fools and, at somewhat worse, deliberate liars." Two sub points - there is a common understanding - true AND the two subsets of that common understanding are "deluded" or "liars". The "deliberate" bit is hyperbolic redundancy because "lie" is by definition deliberate.
3) Given the truth of "No CD" the use of "liar" needs no further explanation.
If you want reasoned discussion of some aspect put forward a reasoned argument.
By Dr. Kevin Barret, who lies about the study, and fooled... 911 truth followers? Did KB fool you?
Gage makes 300 to 400 k per year selling lies; sad BART has the same standards as Gage, $$$,$$$. Who will fall for the dumbed down advertising anyway?
"‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane, while government dupes are crazy and hostile", lol, Kevin Barrett dupes are sane? Not on 911 issues. Better read the study before joining Kevin in his failed fantasy of 911.
Last edited:
According to this guy's post on Google+ on August 16, the San Francisco ad campaign has been going on for at least a week - with almost zero impact so far. The web doesn't care, there's no significant grow in support for ReThink911 and, of course, no reference in the media. Except this thread, the above link is the only site I found where this is mentioned at all. Not even AE911Truth themselves talk about it.
ArchStanton
New Blood
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2013
- Messages
- 16
Like beachnut says, that article by Kevin Barrett completely misrepresents the actual study. Like most conspiracy kooks, you've obviously never read the study itself, preferring instead to read a travesty written by a well-known conspiracy kook on a well-known conspiracy kook TV channel's website.
Like you, my post count isn't high enough yet to post direct links but if you do a search on "What about Building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories", you'll find a link to the Frontiers website, with an abstract of the Michael Wood and Karen Douglas study. If you look at the "PDF" link on the right, you can download the full study. It doesn't even use the word "sane" anywhere in the document, that's how much of a liar Barrett is. The study is in reality a very interesting analysis of the conspiracy believer's mindset - they are more interested in finding "anomalies" in "official stories" to bolster their already held view of an over-arching super-conspiracy (aka "confirmation bias") than in finding evidence to support a specific theory.
Last edited:
Oh geez, I didn't realize that was Kevin Barrett. That explains the illogic in extrapolating from "people who comment on news articles" to the general population, and then affirming the consequent down the line. Geez.
Here's the actual article. On the right side you can download the PDF or surf it in readable form. It's a little dry and academic for my taste.
Abstract is here.
Here's the actual article. On the right side you can download the PDF or surf it in readable form. It's a little dry and academic for my taste.
Abstract is here.
Donal
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2006
- Messages
- 8,910
Don't do that. That's vandalism. Be the bigger man.
Calm, rational discourse does way more to dispel this nonsense than sinking to their level.
Nope.. But thanks for that link.