Why did the 9-11 Truth Movement fail?

[nicepants]

The 911 truth movement hasn't failed.

It's been 7 years...and it certainly hasn't succeeded.

 

[T.A.M.]

guys stop taking the bait.

If the 9/11 truth movement HASN'T failed, and is growing, then it is simply a totally embarrassing, unaccomplished movement, that should be ASHAMED for the lack of progress they have made.

Don't let him tease you into arguing ridiculousness.

TAM

 

[1337m4n]

The 911 truth movement hasn't failed. D

No?

So you're saying that George Bush is in jail? Right now?

If the Truth Movement had succeeded, surely we would've noticed something by now. 7+ years of 9/11 Truth. Result? Absolutely nothing.

Name one thing the Truth Movement has accomplished. One.

There's loads of people out there who believe 911 was an inside job.

Show me.

In fact in my experience the numbers are rising not falling. Apart from one guy's confession which was coerced through torture and who is being tried in a kangaroo court, there's no evidence it wasn't an inside job. In fact the joke confession and joke trial only serve to persuade even more people it was an inside job.

1) Please provide evidence that the confession was coerced through torture.

2) Please provide evidence that the court is a kangaroo court.

3) Please provide evidence that anyone's mind has been changed from official story to conspiracy theory by the confession and trial.

4) Please provide evidence refuting FDR data, air traffic control data, testimony from thousands of eyewitnesses, testimony from thousands of emergency responders, cleanup workers, and officials, testimony from thousands of experts in engineering, physics, air crash investigation, and criminal investigations, and testimony from Osama bin Laden himself.

5) Please provide evidence of anything. Anything at all.

Even though that makes me a 'twoofer' to Fundamentalist Dewunkers, and a Dewunker to Fundamentalist Twoofers, I'm agnostic on the issue.

1) That statement had nothing to do with the rest of your post or with the rest of the thread. There was no topical reason to make that statement.

2) The only reason to directly state your personal beliefs, if you haven't been specifically asked for them, is if you fear people might infer otherwise.

3) Agnostics tend to criticize both sides equally. I've looked through your posting history, and--curiously enough--you've only ever criticized one side.

4) You blindly repeat lies made up by Truthers without even checking the sources.

5) Just come out of the closet already. You are fooling no one.

When dewunkers have to personally attack those who they call twoofers it only exposes the weakness of their position.

Good thing you've never made a personal attack, otherwise you'd be a hypocrite. Right, TFT?

Like I say, this thread is one of a masturbatory nature. I hope the orgasm was worth it. :

And of what "nature" was your post?

 

[metamars]

Nonsense.

They failed because they are wrong. Period.

In order to give your statement any credence, we'd have to pre-suppose that not only is there not ample reasons to doubt the the US government version, but that the US government was ready and willing to honestly and thoroughly investigate 911.

Both pre-suppositions are wrong, though the second statement is murkier, since it's perfectly possible that there were much more thorough investigations than have become public knowledge. Nevertheless, for reasons I don't want to get into, even the 2nd statement appears to concretely apply, at least wrt some areas that we are aware of.

Now, if you determine success as getting the government to seriously, honestly and publicly re-investigate 911, then I have to agree that it has failed. Furthermore, as Obama's change.gov saw fit to censor a 911 issue, I have zero positive expectations for anything to change next year.

The question of "why?", though, again exposes why the sort of debunker mentality so readily in evidence here at JREF is so useless in pursuing the unvarnished truth. I am not going to elaborate on the issue of debunker mental dysfunction in this particular thread, but I will elaborate on what the 911 Truth community has done wrong, which has caused it to fail, and what they need to do, instead. (I may, in the future, start a thread on what I call "abortive thought processes" of debunkers, which is one of the key features of so many debunkers that makes them keep missing obvious points that a 10 year old can readily grasp, or make probabilistic inferences that a 10 year old could make.)

In a nutshell, we are dealing with a systemically ill entity, that requires a broad-spectrum approach, and is thus impervious to change from what amount to pinpricks from 911 Truthers. It's kind of like applying a single antibiotic for a week when instead a cure requires a broad spectrum anti-biotic applied for 3 months. I elaborated on this theme at 911blogger, and reproduce my writing here.


Missing the Bigger Picture

In my experience, the main impediment to giving serious consideration by the public to 911 truth arguments is the ingrained attitude of "I just don't believe that the US government could allow it's own citizens to be killed (LIHOP) or kill them itself (MIHOP)."

This is kind of like saying that "I don't believe in LIHOP/MIHOP as a serious position since I don't believe LIHOP/MIHOP is possible."

In terms of getting a serious re-investigation to 911, I don't think anybody can seriously argue that we've made progress, when you consider the near universal silence of Congress critters (or, just as bad, the "form letter" response that they are pleased with the 911 Commission report). What, then, if the 2008 Congress continues in this fashion (exactly what I expect), and the Obama Justice Department does absolutely nothing positive wrt 911?

IMO, 911 truthers should broaden their perspective, and focus on educating the public on government disinformation and media dysfunction in the case of not just 911, but other scandals that speak ill of the integrity of the US government. While viewing 911 as some sort of Rosetta stone in 2005/2006 MIGHT have made sense (and thus justified single issue activism), in 2008/2009 this certainly doesn't strike me as a rational viewpoint.

What I'd like to see the 911 activists who participate in direct actions do is not so much push "911 was an inside job" meme, but rather push the meme of systemic corruption of the US government, aided by disinformation and a dysfunctional media. A 911 coverup would then be a dramatic example of these phenomena, but by no means the only one.

Such an enhanced 911 movement needs to focus on attainable short term goals that can move us, as a society, to the only long term goal that makes sense to me - which is a government which is ethical. What should such short term goals be? Well, I am posting this in the hopes of stimulating a debate/discussion on exactly this subject. But some short term goals I consider worthwhile are:

1) get 50% + of the population viewing therealnews.com, and 10%+ supporting it with regular contributions. The Real News does not accept government or corporate funding, and depends wholly on subscriber contributions. They want to create a television network, which is the only way to achieve this particular 50%+ goal, anyway. (They currently mostly get out their programs via internet streaming.)

2) get 50% + of the population to embrace an alternative replacement TV media, where corporate and government funding is banned. Such a subscriber supported media would have what I called "uncommercials" instead of commercials. I elaborated on this idea a bit below (copying my post from zcommunications.org), but my original proposal "Putting the NY Times Out of Business" is currently unavailable.

3) reach out to 100% of college freshmen with some DVD's about the history of propaganda, history that isn't skewed to make the "winners" more palatable or praise-worthy than they deserve to be (I'm thinking along the lines of Howard Zinn's "A People's History of America", where, e.g., brutal imperialism is not white-washed; I am not proposing that a leftist view of America be presented, only an honest one), the history of false flag operations, and the history of betrayal by subsets of American elites, sometimes with their main target other American elites. E.g., I recently found out that Nixon, or people close to him, had approached the North Vietnamese during the 1968 Presidential campaign, and communicated to them that they should "hold out" for a better deal with a President Nixon. Well, if this ain't treason, I don't know what is. Somehow, even without checking, I feel confident predicting that 99% of US high school history books will make no mention of this. The real news segment now provides a smoking gun in the form of a President Johnson conversation on this, but again, I doubt there are any immediate plans by US high school history books to bring this treasonous affair to light.

So, the "hook" to approach the college freshmen with is to take 5 or so stunning examples where the history they were taught make them think one thing, quiz them on it, and when they flunk each and every question, start pointing out to them that how and why they came to be such ignoramuses about their own country's history.

4) reach out to 50%+ of the US population to strongly support populist movements within both Democrat and Republican parties. As a start, that means making 50% of the American public keenly aware of the fact that populist options exist. E.g., for Democrats and Greens, they can support the Progressive Democrats of America (see pdamerica.org). For Republicans and Libertarians, they can support Ron Paul's efforts to reform the Republican party.

5) help third parties (such as the Greens) achieve electoral success at the local and state level. (IMO, national success along the lines of Congressional seats and the Presidency are long-term goals)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note that 4) and 5) are different from 1), 2), and 3), in that 1-3 are meant to attack the pseudo-reality inflicted on the US public via endless lying and skewing by politicians, the media (probably manipulated, to some extent, by professional propagandists and disinformationists, as was talked about in the movie posted), and their "education". (See also Noam Chomsky on "controlling the public mind"). Because of the public's internalized pseudo-reality, 911 truth (etc.) is viewed as what I call "high strangeness" (this phrase borrowed from J. Allen Hynek of UFO research fame). The idea is that 911 won't be such a high strangeness notion if you move the public's center of gravity of their conceptual framework, by which they view the world. And this conceptual framework or model includes assumptions about the often hidden exercize of illicit power.

4) and 5) do not entail taking on "high-strangeness" phenomena, but can indirectly work toward that end by disempowering deceitful elites. In fact, as "Politics is the art of the possible.", I don't think individuals pursuing 4) or 5) should be up front about any of their "high-strangeness" beliefs. At least until such time that efforts such as 1), 2) and 3) succeed to the point where "high strangeness" becomes "uncomfortable to think about, but very possible".

Finally, for activists that wish to stay within the confines of 911, I have a question which doesn't seem to get any serious effort or even consideration. And that annoys me because I see a lot of activists' energies wasted, in many different areas (not just 911). 911 Truthers say they want a serious re-investigation, but such a reinvestigation requires, for the most part, state power. You and I cannot go around issuing subpoenas. Correct?

However, nothing prevents private citizens from knocking on doors in Venice, Florida, or Germany, where questions could be put to fellow citizens regarding the non-invisible Mohammed Atta and his non-invisible associates - some of them Dutch and German, according or Daniel Hopsicker.

Considering the 911 Truth movement's record in getting Congress or the Justice Department to pay serious attention to 911, doesn't it make even more sense to organize citizens to support investigations that don't require state power? Does not the work of Daniel Hopsicker on 911 deserve to be either validated by independent investigators, or else exposed as mistaken (or worse)??

I take it as a very bad sign that, after all these years, the 911 Truth Movement has not done so. And the failure to have done so is more the 911 Truth Movement's fault than the US government's. Why isn't this failure to organize effectively of more concern than disinformation "destroying" the 911 Truth movement??? Is it really Morgan Reynolds' and Judy Wood's fault that you and I haven't gotten together to check on Hopsicker's findings, as Hopsicker himself has called for? Of course not.

My conclusion is that this is yet another example of sub-optimal functioning of a group of activists. Unfortunately, not very impressive, when you consider how important 911 is thought to be.

========================================

Serious Programs, Fluff, and the Uncommercial Glue that can bind them in IM
( IM is shorthand for the internet-based media replacement I have called for)

As I've mentioned, some fluff is good. By fluff I mean pretty much what fiction you're getting on the tube now - Desperate Housewives, Grey's Anatomy, etc. The main reason fluff is good is because the public demands their fluff, irregardless of any idealistic notion that you or I may hold about how other people should prioritize their non-working hours. Capturing the attendant revenue stream that satisfying such a demand can generate means that part of that money can be used to fund more serious, public-minded content. Secondly, getting people into the habit of viewing their fluff through an IM system means that they are that much more likely to 'turn the channel' from one IM source to another. That's certainly better than them switch from ABC to CBS or NBC. They will eventually want to check out the serious content, and if it's compelling enough, they may become educated on serious matters, in spite of themselves.

Uncommercial Glue

Fluff needs no more elaboration. However, before discussing some suggestions for serous content, I want to talk about the glue that can bind them. The 'glue' is non-commercial commercials. (Sorry! I can't think of a better term. So, I'll just refer to them as Uncommercials.) The best graphic (non-video) analog I can think of are what you see in Adbuster magazine. (See adbuster.org. I think you can pick up a copy of the magazine in big bookstores such as Barnes and Noble) Adbusters has some videos at http://www.adbusters.org/abtv/videos/ , which I haven't watched, yet. Some uncommercials I have seen that really impressed me were from moveon.org. (See http://www.obamain30seconds.com/?rc=homepage which shows some 'Bush in 30 seconds' ads that they made).

Of course, IM Uncommercials should not only be on various public-interest issues that can be commented upon in 30 or 60 seconds. They should also advertise serious IM programs. Although IM forbids advertising, not only can an exception be made for Uncommercials, they should be made for them. If subscribers want to, they can simply opt out of them. However, if the ads are interesting enough, I don't think many will do so. In this way, we may be able to turn large numbers of clueless "idiotes" ** into public-minded citizens, over a period of time. As always, it would be better to allow subscribers to choose their own filters for uncommercials, also.

Serious Programs

I wish I had more time to make a polished list and presentation. However, this will have to do for now. The format for the following is either a suggested program name (in quotes), followed by an indented description, or else it's a category of programs, followed by either some description and/or named programs which fall under this category.

"Then and Now"
-------------------------------
Various aspects of people's lives now vs. how they were in the past, AND HOW AND WHY THEY DIFFER. In many ways, our lives are better. We also need to understand why this is so E.g., I've met old-timers who regularly worked 70 hour work weeks. Not because they chose a demanding profession, but because they basically had little choice. Those of us who don't have to work crazy hours should appreciate what we have. And those who do, should understand what has happened to the US economy to make us regress (e.g., unions being decimated).

"Here and There"
-------------------------------
Various aspects of people's live now vs. how they are in the present, here (in the US) and abroad, AND HOW AND WHY THEY DIFFER
As I have previously mentioned, a key example of this is health care. All adult American citizens should have good idea of what health care options and cost are like in modern, European countries, at the very least. It should not have required Michael Moore to do this (though thank goodness he made a start.).

"Follow the Money"
-------------------------------
Who paid for various technological developments, and who profited
Secretive Public/Private entities as described by Walter Burien. See also works of Catherine Austin Fitts
Why only 2 or 3 (or 5,6) dominant companies in various industries (Cola, Gasoline, etc.)
Special Interest Triumphs via Legislation, and the infrastructure (PR, lobbyists, revolving door*) that make this possible

Reality Shows
-------------------------------
"Buck the Trends" (speaking out at work, church, school; following how activists are treated)
"Doer vs. Drinker" (i.e., activist vs. idiote/party animal). These two need to be related in terms of the Activist doing something which would materially benefit the Party Animal/idiote. The idea is to show how the idiote is so negligent ito
their civic life that they are hurting their own future, and making the effort of the activist which would help the Party Animal, less successful.
"Kicking the habit" (follows people who undertake some program to make significant changes in their life - lose weight, quit smoking, get a job that they like, change from idiote -> Activist/Doer)
"Ebony and Ivory" In this reality show, you pair up Rush Limbaugh dittoe-heads with similarly obnoxious liberals, who have to live together X months without killing each other. Or, you could pair up educated, polite conservatives with educated, polite liberals. There's all kinds of possibilities. To really make it interesting, you also throw in Green, Anarchists, Joe-six-packs (who couldn't care less about politics), etc.

Social Engineering
-------------------------------
How positive forces for good, historical and potential, were/are coopted by elites
"Control of Language". Which phrases commonly in use short-circuit critical thinking. E.g., "Support the troops".
"Gatekeepers of Power" (and how they came to their positions of power). Mostly focussing on politicians (who are, in fact, the ultimate gatekeepers, which is why they should get the most scrutiny by the public), but also on regulatory agencies, courts, and opinion-makers such as talking heads and scientist-whores. Additionally, there needs to be more coverage of interlocking boards of directors of major corporations.
"Public vs. Elites"
inspired by http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1374171791984672068 (see about 15:00 into the BBC interview) Noam Chomsky makes the claim that on issues in which the public is at odds with the elites, the public's viewpoint is simply not seriously discussed during elections. (He's actually says that the issue "doesn't arise", but I think that's a bit of an exaggeration.
"Cooption" This is bolded for the simple reason that it is a subject that I find particularly fascinating. What the hell happened to the environmental movement? The unions? In short, other aspects of civil society that are supposed to represent non-moneyed interests. Were they simply ineffective due to a jaded public, opposition by vested interests, etc.? Or were they also undermined from within, deliberately, by their enemies? IMO, trojan horses are worth their weight in gold, as a tactic for taking down honest activist or more public-minded efforts. Thus, even if I had no facts on the matter, I expect them to be there. However, the point of a "Cooption" program is to ascertain the facts of the matter, document them, and present them.

"Imperial Overeach"
-------------------------------
What are the characteristic of Imperial Overreach, historically? (especially in more modern times, when there was an intelligentsia serving as apologists for ruling elites). Which of those characteristics does the US share? Contrast with commonly accepted collective self-image.

Blowback (fiction)
-------------------------------
This could be one or many futuristic shows. Themes might include:

Lower Manhattan going underwater, due to the effects of global warming
Another Great Depression, due to foreign lenders giving up on the notion of ever getting their T-Bill purchases fully honored
Americans soldiers, captured, then tortured by "terrorists" , who cite the US approved torture as their justification. After all, if Geneva conventions don't apply to them as victims, why should they apply to them as perpetrators?
Dissidents "disappeared", due to the decimation of Constitutional protections in our drift to fascism
Public Assets Sold Off, since the public is too broke, having been impoverished by uncontrolled borrowing on the one hand, and a "free market" on the other.

Satire News (semi-fictional)
-------------------------------
Should allow guest 'newspeople' (also satirical) from various political perspectives - Left, Right, Green, Socialist, LaRouchean, you name it. Saturday Night Live news skits often feature guests. The real difference here is that all newsreporters need to have a serious bite, not just be entertaining. So, I guess Jon Stewart is more the role model in terms of, hmmm, what to call it? 'Pointedness', I guess.

Propaganda Debunk
-------------------------------
Day by day reporting on what various governments and institutions SAID, versus what is true, or probably true. We recently found out how many hundreds of lies the Bush Administration told to get us into Iraq. We should have had a daily update, so that this orgy of lying have been widely known in it's early days. What else is the government lying about, and how many total lies does it have to tell before it can be reported?
Day by day reporting on the 'debates' of the day, as experienced in mainstream media, and what viewpoints were not represented
Day by day reporting on what the elite media did not report, or how their reporting was skewed (this is already done by FAIR (fair.org) ; it's been a while since I've listened to them, but my vague recollection is that they were a bit dry, were gatekeepers, and were only presenting a left viewpoint. My apologies if I'm mis-characterizing them).

Video-ized Book Serializations.
--------------------------------------
There are many excellent books which will never be read, for various reasons. If they were condensed and serialized, jazzed up with interviews and video so that they looked more like PBS's "Frontline" rather than, say, just a talking head reading from a book 100% of the time, I think there'd be a huge audience for this. Audio-only versions could also be created, for non-premium IM subscribers, as well as high-end subscribers who simply want to consume the information away from a TV set.

Foreign Media
-------------------------------
What is the foreign media saying about the US, and about international affairs? We can watch BBC, but I'd like to see summaries, with quoted excerpts, from various foreign media. I'd also like to know details about any corruption in their media, as well the range of opinions which get expressed in their media. One of the disturbing things about the US population is that there's many Americans who are so dumb or propagandized that they think that there's only two sides to a story - a "liberal" and a "conservative" one.

* what happened to the phrase "revolving door"? I remember encountering it quite often many years ago. I have wondered whether it's been deliberately suppressed.
** The word 'idiot' come from the Greek 'idiote': From wikipedia:

A good example of the contempt the first democrats felt for those who did not participate in politics can be found in the modern word 'idiot', which finds its origins in the ancient Greek word ??????? (idi?t?s), meaning a private person, a person who is not actively interested in politics; such characters were talked about with contempt and the word eventually acquired its modern meaning. In his Funeral Oration, Pericles states: 'it is only we who regard the one not participating in these duties not as unambitious but as useless.'

Analogy of suppression and displacement of evil actors

"4) and 5) do not entail taking on "high-strangeness" phenomena, but can indirectly work toward that end by disempowering deceitful elites. "

I was reading Dr. Karpa's "Bacteria for Breakfast" just yesterday, which provides an illustration of this concept, from the world of gut bacteria. I kid you not, fearless reader! Karpa's book is about good bacteria (probiotics), bad bacteria, and prebiotics. It is thought that two mechanisms by which good bacteria help suppress bad bacteria are via competition for nutrients and binding sites on the intestinal wall.

However, there is evidence in the scientific literature for more aggressive means of suppression:

For example, various lactobacillus species prduce hydrogen peroxide, carbon dioxide, and diacetyl, which are detrimantal to food-borne pathogens (Kailasapathy and Chin, 2000). Also, lactobacilli produce a wide variety of bacteriocins such as nisin, lactobrevin, acidophilin, acidolin, lactobacillin, lactocidin, and lactolin. These bacterial toxin actively kill numerous species of bacteria (Kailasapathy and Chin, 2000).
Another example of a toxin produced by "good bacteria" directed against "bad bacteria" is the toxin produced by Bacteroides. Bacteroides organisms are the major gram negative obligate anaerobic bacilli found in the colon. Bacterial toxins produced by these microorganisms are believed to selectively destroy disease-causing Clostridium difficile. Many people suffering from life-threatening, chronic, persistent Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea have been cured when bacteroides species were replaced in their colons (Borody, 2000).

The point is that if you displace deceitful elites with elites who are probiotic (so to speak), even if your new and improved elites aren't particularly inclined to 911 truth, you would now be dealing with a government which is more life-affirming. By necessity, if such a government was to become convinced that a serious case for a 911 reinvestigation exists, then it is far, far more likely to happen. Just like a probiotic bacteria likely evolved it's bad bacteria suppressing functions for the benefit of it's own species, but this nevertheless benefits the host, we can expect a more ethical government actors to eventually be more willing to tackle the dark side of the US government, even if this wasn't their original motivation to get involved with politics. (I ignore complexities of categorization when we are talking about a species which has a symbiotic relationship with a host, and thus a shared evolution.)

Pushing the analogy further, if we consider the US political system to be a human GI tract, with elected and non-elected elites to be the bacteria, I don't see sufficient change in the intestinal flora to merit optimism re a 911 reinvestigation in the next four years. If we consider the host (i.e., human that the GI tract belongs to) to be the body politic, the fact that some pre-cancerous cells may have been killed outside the GI tract in no way means that the conditions predisposing towards disease emanating from the GI tract have been alleviated even one iota.

If you want to read all about the really nasty diseases which originate in the GI tract, and can even kill you, you can read Karpa's book. If you want to be honest about what is required to restore health to the US political system, you would do well to consider what is required to have probiotic elites replace their opposite. I will go further and say that if you don't give this any thought, you are likely to simply be spinning your wheels, ultimately for nothing. Karpa's journey into the world of probiotics was precipitated by life-threatening illness of her two-year-old, which was cured by the used of probiotics. It's my impression that had she simply continued with the ineffective treatments her physicians were prescribing, her son would either have grown up chronically ill, or even died.

Cockburn is Doing Us a Favor

.
.
.
Although I didn't mention it, left gatekeeping and left gatekeepers should be exposed, also. (BTW, I meant do this each and every year.) To make this more explicit, as I did with other near term goals that I listed, I will also call for:

3b) reach out to 100% of college freshmen with articles about left gatekeeping. One noteworthy article about left gatekeeping is from Peter Phillips and Project Censored, who have done some preliminary (and frankly skimpy, though still very promising) research into the phenomena. See their paper Left Progressive Media Inside the Propaganda Model at http://s31076.gridserver.com/assets-managed/pdf/LeftProgressiveMediaInsi... .

On p. 10, this article has a table which rates the coverage of 8 issues (only 2 of which are 911 related), in 10 different left media. Of course, this approach makes far more sense than trying to come to some sort of judgement based on a single issue, as a litmus test. Shockingly, the issue of 'US Operatives Torture Detainees to Death in Afghanistan and Iraq' is not covered in 6 of the 10 left media! (In These Times, Buzz Flash, The Progressive, Alternet, The Nation, and Democracy Now.) Some leftists these guys are!

The fact that, in spite of the mountains of evidence for conspiracy in the JFK assassination, the Cockburns of this world will have the temerity to mock the very idea of it, shows you something about what 911 Truthers should expect about left gatekeepers (not to mention the flamboyant and insulting right wingers like Bill O'Reilly). They should be expecting continued mocking and/or skewed framing and/or conspicuous (to those in the know) omissions in the recital of government-friendly myths, for decades to come. .

IMO, the right way to combat this is analogous to a physician prescribing a broad-spectrum antibiotic. At this late date, pushing "911 was an inside job" strikes me as vastly inferior to pushing the meme of "Your government is lying to you, and the media is helping them do it. Here is a catalog of the lies, omissions, distortions and crimes .... and here is what you can do about it......"

If 911 activists don't want to end up like so many other activists - spinning their wheels doing feel good actions that don't actually change anything - then I suggest that they at least attempt a controlled experiment, where they approach some people simply with 911 truth material, others with the sort of broad scope material I suggest, and then follow up both groups (somehow) to see which group changed it's behavior more towards positive citizenship and truthful information seeking and consumption.

 

[jhunter1163]

tl;dr

 

[jaydeehess]

Just got back, great shopping day. I picked up Christmas ornaments for next year at a nice deal. You might get out of the basement for a bit and go get you some too!

I read those posts. I yawned again.

I'm over 50 yrs old, don't need any more Christmas ornaments and I never have lived to shop.
It was a bit difficult to go anywhere anyway as we got over a foot of snow and i spent an hour shoveling the white stuff out of the driveway. Then I got called into work for a bit of an emergency.

But thanks for your concern.

 

[1337m4n]

tl;dr

He's babbling about "left gatekeeping" (whatever the hell that means) and "alternative media" (as if the lack of corporate funding magically makes the group immune to corruption*).







*To see why I say this, perform a simple thought experiment. Take Rupert Murdoch exactly as he is--same personality, same ideology, same wealth--but remove all of his corporate connections. Now have him continue to fund Fox News. His funding will now be classified as "independent funding" rather than "corporate funding". Will anything significant change (aside from having a different person in charge of Fox itself)?

 

[MikeW]

I may, in the future, start a thread on what I call "abortive thought processes" of debunkers, which is one of the key features of so many debunkers that makes them keep missing obvious points that a 10 year old can readily grasp, or make probabilistic inferences that a 10 year old could make.)

Go for it. I'll see you there.

 

[dudalb]

Because he doesn't stick just to 9-11. He's diversified -- a one stop shop for paranoiacs to get their daily dose of fear and indignation.

Jones was in the Conspiracy business a long time before 9/11. He just jumped on the bandwagon very quickly, and has now jumped off, and is waiting for the Next Big Thing in Conspiracy theories to come along.

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

No?

So you're saying that George Bush is in jail? Right now?

If the Truth Movement had succeeded, surely we would've noticed something by now. 7+ years of 9/11 Truth. Result? Absolutely nothing.

Name one thing the Truth Movement has accomplished. One.

They are continuing to spread the message that there is more than one side to a story.

Show me.

Now you are being absurd. Surely you don't deny all the opinions that can easily be read all over the world.

Don't be lazy, go and find them yourself.

1) Please provide evidence that the confession was coerced through torture.

2) Please provide evidence that the court is a kangaroo court.

Everyone knows about the waterboarding and the dodgy military court. if they had nothing to hide they'd try him in a proper court. But we all know that won't happen.

3) Please provide evidence that anyone's mind has been changed from official story to conspiracy theory by the confession and trial.

bizarre

4) Please provide evidence refuting FDR data, air traffic control data, testimony from thousands of eyewitnesses, testimony from thousands of emergency responders, cleanup workers, and officials, testimony from thousands of experts in engineering, physics, air crash investigation, and criminal investigations,

Surely you are not suggesting people are denying 911 happened? What relevance has any of that got to do with whether it was an inside job? NOTHING.

AFAIK the truth movement doesn't deny 911 happened. They think it was arranged at least by a 'western' group or groups.

you remind me of the idiot who came out with a classic retort when I once asked for evidence of it not being an inside job. He replied "Well I saw it happen on TV!" - I laughed my pants off

and testimony from Osama bin Laden himself.

Yeah rigghhhhht!

Please provide evidence. The only text I've seen attributed to Bin Laden he doesn't admit to 911 at all.

911 was the biggest incident. Can you explain why the FBI aren't indicting him for 911 ?

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

5) Please provide evidence of anything. Anything at all.

And you provide evidence that 911 wasn't an inside job.

1) That statement had nothing to do with the rest of your post or with the rest of the thread. There was no topical reason to make that statement.

So what? Are you the Topical Police? Book me!

2) The only reason to directly state your personal beliefs, if you haven't been specifically asked for them, is if you fear people might infer otherwise.

Nonsense.. and please provide evidence.

3) Agnostics tend to criticize both sides equally.

Please provide evidence of this

I've looked through your posting history, and--curiously enough--you've only ever criticized one side.

4) You blindly repeat lies made up by Truthers without even checking the sources.

Please provide evidence

5) Just come out of the closet already. You are fooling no one.

please provide evidence

Good thing you've never made a personal attack, otherwise you'd be a hypocrite. Right, TFT?

You oughta learn the definition of hypocrite. it's basic stuff. I've never claimed not to make personal attacks.

Your reply was crap. really crap. Laughable in fact. That's not a personal attack, that's an observation.

 

[Brainache]

They are continuing to spread the message that there is more than one side to a story.




Now you are being absurd. Surely you don't deny all the opinions that can easily be read all over the world.

Don't be lazy, go and find them yourself.






Everyone knows about the waterboarding and the dodgy military court. if they had nothing to hide they'd try him in a proper court. But we all know that won't happen.




bizarre



Surely you are not suggesting people are denying 911 happened? What relevance has any of that got to do with whether it was an inside job? NOTHING.

AFAIK the truth movement doesn't deny 911 happened. They think it was arranged at least by a 'western' group or groups.

you remind me of the idiot who came out with a classic retort when I once asked for evidence of it not being an inside job. He replied "Well I saw it happen on TV!" - I laughed my pants off





Yeah rigghhhhht!

Please provide evidence. The only text I've seen attributed to Bin Laden he doesn't admit to 911 at all.

911 was the biggest incident. Can you explain why the FBI aren't indicting him for 911 ?

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm





And you provide evidence that 911 wasn't an inside job.




So what? Are you the Topical Police? Book me!




Nonsense.. and please provide evidence.




Please provide evidence of this



Please provide evidence




please provide evidence



You oughta learn the definition of hypocrite. it's basic stuff. I've never claimed not to make personal attacks.

Your reply was crap. really crap. Laughable in fact. That's not a personal attack, that's an observation.

You're not very good at this.

I suggest you take a look outside at what is actually happening in the real world and notice just how irrelevant all of your BS is.

 

[Bell]

Name one thing the Truth Movement has accomplished. One.

They are continuing to spread the message that there is more than one side to a story.

So do Jehovah's Witness at my front door on sunday mornings.

 

[twinstead]

Any crazy person with any crazy idea could claim to be spreading the message that there is more than one side of the story. It means NOTHING, and is certainly not a rational answer to "Name one thing the Truth Movement has accomplished. One".

 

[Bell]

Any crazy person with any crazy idea could claim to be spreading the message that there is more than one side of the story. It means NOTHING, and is certainly not a rational answer to "Name one thing the Truth Movement has accomplished. One".

Actually, it means A LOT in regard to what the truth movement has accomplished.

 

[stateofgrace]

Yeah rigghhhhht!

Please provide evidence. The only text I've seen attributed to Bin Laden he doesn't admit to 911 at all.

911 was the biggest incident. Can you explain why the FBI aren't indicting him for 911 ?

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

I picked up on this point and deleted the rest of your rubbish post. Maybe you could explain this please.

Please explain why UBL has not been indicted by the US for 911. Do you contest that because there is no indictment he is not involved? Do you contest that there is no evidence to indict him?

Please explain in your own words the importance you place on indicting UBL for this attack. Would you be happier if UBL had been indicted for 911? Would it mean he was involved? Or would it mean that the US covered their involvement by indicting him?

How would you feel if UBL had been indicted for his involvement in 911? Would you be satisfied or would you dismiss such an indictment?

 

[Thunder]

Yeah rigghhhhht!

Please provide evidence. The only text I've seen attributed to Bin Laden he doesn't admit to 911 at all.
.

Bin Laden has taken credit again and again. In video after video he said he had knowledge of the attacks before they occured.

I thought you were agnostic about 9-11? Didn't you say that? Are you now claiming to have an opinion about 9-11, and therefore when you claimed to be agnostic you were lying?

Do you go onto 9-11 truther sites and take the side of debunkers?

I bet you don't. Agnostic my butt. You are a truther.

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Bin Laden has taken credit again and again. In video after video he said he had knowledge of the attacks before they occured.

I thought you were agnostic about 9-11? Didn't you say that? Are you now claiming to have an opinion about 9-11, and therefore when you claimed to be agnostic you were lying?

Do you go onto 9-11 truther sites and take the side of debunkers?

I bet you don't. Agnostic my butt. You are a truther.

"Video after video" - how many videos is that? 2? 3? 4? 5? 6?

Right, so where are these videos then? not fake videos but real one's.

The only one I'm aware of is the video where he praises the 911 attackers but doesn't rake credit.


And yes I am agnostic about 911. Because I question doesn't make me a 100% twoofer. Of course I realize that to the rabid dewunkers anyone not professing 100% allegiance to the "It could only have happened how the Government said it happened!" club is a twoofer.

It's the old "You are either with us or with them" dumb mentality again. People with some intelligence realized that the world isn't solely divided into the two stupid camps of Good and Evil.

I'm not taking sides I'm questioning. You cannot resolve anything but 2 states can you? You are a 1 bit thinker.

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

I picked up on this point and deleted the rest of your rubbish post. Maybe you could explain this please.

Please explain why UBL has not been indicted by the US for 911. Do you contest that because there is no indictment he is not involved? Do you contest that there is no evidence to indict him?

Please explain in your own words the importance you place on indicting UBL for this attack. Would you be happier if UBL had been indicted for 911? Would it mean he was involved? Or would it mean that the US covered their involvement by indicting him?

It's ironic you call my post rubbish.

You seem to have a very low level of comprehension. Let's look at your reply.

I said... "Can you explain why the FBI aren't indicting him for 911 ?" - You are aware that was a question? yes?

and you reply ...."Please explain why UBL has not been indicted by the US for 911."

I would have thought that anyone with a reasonable amount of intelligence would realize that it's a bit stupid asking someone why Bin Laden wasn't indicted for 9112 by the FBI when they've just asked the very same question themselves.

How would you feel if UBL had been indicted for his involvement in 911? Would you be satisfied or would you dismiss such an indictment?

How would I feel? No different to how I feel now. I'm sure the FBI would have specifically indicted him for 911 had they thought there was evidence he was involved.

There is no evidence though. Unlike the dewunkers at least the FBI haven't made themselves look like an idiot like American Dad by formally indicting someone for something there's no evidence of.

Thanks for making yourself look foolish though. one thing I love about this forum. You discredit one, and soon enough another one blindly throws themselves on the stage as a target for ridicule.

Before I close I couldn't help notice this beauty of a question...

Do you contest that there is no evidence to indict him?

A dewunker shoots himself truly in the foot. By that question I take it you are positing that there is no evidence of Bin Laden's invlovementand you are asking me if I contest that.

No I don't contest it at all. In fact I fully agree with you that there is no evidence of Bin Laden being involved in 911.

Please reply again. You were fun. Very easy though. Please be a bit more challenging next time

 

[dtugg]

"Video after video" - how many videos is that? 2? 3? 4? 5? 6?

Right, so where are these videos then? not fake videos but real one's.

The only one I'm aware of is the video where he praises the 911 attackers but doesn't rake credit.

So how did you come to conclusion that the ones where he takes credit are fake? Let me guess, the Fatty bin Laden video is one of the fakes. I already know why people who have no idea what they are talking about say they are fake and why they have no idea what they are talking about. Perhaps you are the genius who can pwn all of us by proving once and for all it's fake.

 

[stateofgrace]

It's ironic you call my post rubbish.

You seem to have a very low level of comprehension. Let's look at your reply.

I said... "Can you explain why the FBI aren't indicting him for 911 ?" - You are aware that was a question? yes?

and you reply ...."Please explain why UBL has not been indicted by the US for 911."

I would have thought that anyone with a reasonable amount of intelligence would realize that it's a bit stupid asking someone why Bin Laden wasn't indicted for 9112 by the FBI when they've just asked the very same question themselves.




How would I feel? No different to how I feel now. I'm sure the FBI would have specifically indicted him for 911 had they thought there was evidence he was involved.

There is no evidence though. Unlike the dewunkers at least the FBI haven't made themselves look like an idiot like American Dad by formally indicting someone for something there's no evidence of.

Thanks for making yourself look foolish though. one thing I love about this forum. You discredit one, and soon enough another one blindly throws themselves on the stage as a target for ridicule.

Before I close I couldn't help notice this beauty of a question...



A dewunker shoots himself truly in the foot. By that question I take it you are positing that there is no evidence of Bin Laden's invlovementand you are asking me if I contest that.

No I don't contest it at all. In fact I fully agree with you that there is no evidence of Bin Laden being involved in 911.

Please reply again. You were fun. Very easy though. Please be a bit more challenging next time

And this is why the twoof movement fails. You failed to read or understand the questions.Let me recap..

How would you feel if UBL had been indicted for his involvement in 911? Would you be satisfied or would you dismiss such an indictment?

PS..................

Spain's leading investigating judge issued the first known indictment against Osama bin Laden in the Sept. 11 attacks on Wednesday, accusing al-Qaeda of using the country as a base to plot the devastating strikes on New York and Washington

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-09-17-spain-alqaeda_x.htm


Well? Are you satisfied that there is enough evidence to indict UBL or are you going to, like every twoofer before you, look for reasons to dismiss this indictment?

So why have Spain indicted him if there is no evidence? And why as the US not indicted him?