What's going on here?

[FourScore]

I frequently lurk on this site, and even post a comment on occasion.

But lately it has become difficult to spend time here because there are so many people posting such staunch support for the OCT. Visit any recent post and the same cabal of OCT posters are present (anytime of day or night -- their vigilance is quite remarkable!) It's taken on the quality of a concerted effort to thwart any intellectual discussion about legitimate questions pertaining to 9/11
It appears to me that this is a tactic to overwhelm this forum. Unfortunately, it may be working.

[democraticinsurgent]

1. It is working

I don't usually post here even though this is my primary area of interest and I read posts here every day. The OCT defenders are, as you say, remarkably tenacious and ever present.

I think the other thing that should be said is that they will disparage any questioning of the OCT, labeling the poster a "CT er" even though few if any here (as far as I can tell) articulate an actual alternative theory or hypothesis. Just raising points that don't fit the OCT will provoke them.

[FourScore]

2. My theory

is that the "truth movement" is growing so exponentially right now that a concerted effort is being made to try and quash the growth. Think about it. Let's say someone believes that contrails are some sort of government conspiracy -- an argument I find to be insane. Nonetheless, if people really wanna believe, well, whatever -- I don't really care. I got better things to do than to dispel their fears. I would never spend every moment of my life trying to argue with them on an internet site (or anywhere else for that matter.) Who argues so vehemently with people they disagree with? Who allows this argument to overtake their lives the way that some of the OCT posters seem to have allowed? There can only be one conclusion: to disrupt the dialogue of this forum. Why would someone want to do that? Why are they so vigilant? Don't they have a life? I just don't get it. But it seems to be very effective.

[mirandapriestly]

48. Well put. I don't go to forums where people are talking about foreseeing

the future through the stars or UFOS from outer space with aliens on them or any of that stuff. Although I am quite sure there is no validity to it. The way the OCT talk, people who think government complicity on 911 are just as crazy. So if people really think that it is so crazy why do they so seriously go after it?

[John Q. Citizen]

97. We are past the "first they igor you" phase and into the

"and then they ridicule you" phase.

It seems quite predictable.

[mirandapriestly]

119. uh oh, what's next..they fight you?

I think they are doing that with ridicule simultaneously, so hopefully our victory will be sooner.

[mirandapriestly]

21. they go beyond labeling as a CTer

I have had my family, my mental health, and my intelligence attacked.

[salvorhardin]

36. Can you provide links to where this has happened?

Because as I have said to you before when you have made similar claims, none of those things is acceptable behavior.

[mirandapriestly]

46. this is what they do every time

the posts were obviously removed because they were personal attacks.

[Grateful for Hope]

55. People who regularly read this forum

know that such posts existed. But, because proof is always demanded, it's probably best not to bring them up so as to avoid the inevitable demands.

[Grateful for Hope]

50. Many of the posts MP speaks of

have been deleted. While it is probably best not to talk about deleted posts because one can't provide proof of them, this does not mean the posts were not posted and then were deleted. I have seen posts to that effect, and, while they are no longer there, the damage was already done because others reading this forum saw them before they were deleted.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Grateful for Hope]

61. I value your cotributions here

what a few posters say concerning you or your posts means little to me as I know that you research hard to find answers to your questions, and you share a lot of valuable information.

Ignoring those posts is the best way to proceed, IMHO.

[mirandapriestly]

68. Yes "ignore" has been working really well. eom

[Jazz2006]

84. .

[mirandapriestly]

69. I'm sorry salv., I assume everyone is

aware of all the posts that occur and saw what I am referring to. In fairness it was only a few, and I shouldn't generalize. I have also said things that were personal to some individuals, so it is somewhat hypocritical and self centered of me.

[AZCat]

80. Are you speaking of the same misinterpretations...

that you have alluded to in the past? Because other posters and I have discussed this, and have come to the conclusion that the posts in question weren't necessarily attacks but were misinterpreted as such by you. If so, I consider it a bit of a stretch for you to continue to play the victim, especially when other posters have attempted to clarify and/or apologize for any misunderstanding.

[HamdenRice]

3. OCTabots

I call them OCTabots. It's like a robotic presence that immediately disparages every post with the same basic illogical argument and dismissal. And you are right, the vigilance is non-human. Well, I assume they are human, but they may be working shifts under the same screen names. Post something at say 4 am, and they will immediately swarm in.

There may be some humans as well, but the bots are the most relentless. And keep in mind that the Pentagon has hinted that it will counter what it calls disinformation with a web presence.

On edit:

One more very revealing thing. Do a search by screen name of their posts. Several of them post ONLY in the 9/11 forum, or have a very few posts in other forums that are almost all right wing talking points.

The search function will explain a lot -- try it.

[FourScore]

4. Interesting.

Thanks for the tip.

[AZCat]

79. And what should we think about...

the posters that support "alternate theories" who ONLY post in the 9/11 forum - are they robots also? And I'd love to see some links to right wing talking points coming from the local skeptics - most of what I have seen from them has been mainstream progressivism. Face it - you have absolutely NO evidence for your slanderous post. Continuing to gripe about the disparaging here while committing the same sin is hypocrisy.

[Grateful for Hope]

5. I guess I haven't been wrong in my observations

since others are noticing the same thing I have.

[John Q. Citizen]

6. i have noticed a certain tenacity of a few. I can't say it's true for all

oct posters yet is does seem true for some.

[Grateful for Hope]

7. Good point, JQC. n/t

[salvorhardin]

8. Why I post in this forum

Because I find conspiracism harmful.

Conspiracism denotes a worldview defined by the belief that the primary force moving history is that of the secret machinations of improbably powerful organizations, religions or ethnic groups. It places the legal doctrine of "Cui bono?" on a tall pedestal as the preferred method of analysis over all others. It is a narrative form of scapegoating, where what its' adherents believe, or the factual accuracy of those beliefs, are not nearly so important as how they believe. Conspiracism at its' best diverts attention from systemic, structural and institutional realities that harm people every day and prevent the dream of true democracy from being achieved. Conspiracism at its' worst serves as a promotional vehicle for the most egregious racial or ethnic hatred and antisemitism, flowing from the extreme right. In short, conspiracism is illiberal and regressive.

Some reading...
The Paranoid Style In American Politics, Richard Hofstadter
http://www.neuralgourmet.com/theparanoidstyle

Conspiracism As A Flawed Worldview, Chip Berlet
http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/conspiracism.html

Right Woos Left, Chip Berlet
http://www.publiceye.org/rightwoo/rwooz9_TOC.html

Conspriacy Theories and Far-Right Disinformation, Dr. Laniac's Laboratory
http://drlaniac.com/articles/view.asp?file=ConspiracyDisinfo.htm

Continuing investigations into far-right disinformation, Dr. Laniac's Laboratory
http://www.drlaniac.com/Articles/View.asp?file=moreondisinfo.htm

That's what they want you to believe, The Economist
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1489200

A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America, Michael Barkun
http://www.amazon.com/A-Culture-Conspiracy/dp/0520248120

[Grateful for Hope]

9. You seem to be making an assumption

that all topics here that question the official conspiracy theory are conspiracy theories. I don't think any of us know enough about what really happened to make a judgement such as this. As was recently mentioned in another thread, the fact that evidence has been withheld from the public fuels conjecture and so-called conspiracy theories. If the gov would release all evidence, it would satisfy those who question, with good reason, the official story.

Short of that, a new independent investigation would be very helpful, and very welcome.

[salvorhardin]

11. As has been repeated many times by many people

There were many problems with the 9-11 Commission and it appears to have skirted the degree to which the Bush administration's arrogance and incompetence were responsible for not preventing 9-11. As far as releasing all the evidence goes, I have yet to see 9-11 conspiracists provide an accounting of what evidence they feel has not been released.

There is a difference between a conspiracy, of which the official narrative certainly portrays and conspiracism. Real world conspiracies are limited in scale, scope and duration and are almost invariably revealed. Conspiracism however is a worldview that portrays conspiracies that are vast and impenetrable where fact becomes fiction, fiction becomes fact and the lack of evidence for an assertion is seen as proof positive of that assertion. And while not all who question the official narrative are conspiracists, I could not name a single luminary in the so-called 9-11 Truth movement who is not a conspiracist.

[Grateful for Hope]

14. And, anyone who believes the OCT is a conspiracist

After all, if you believe that 19 boxcutter-wielding Muslim extremists conspired to harm the US and successfully thwarted the greatest defense structure in the world, then one believes in a conspiracy.

[salvorhardin]

16. I will repeat my second paragraph from above

Because you apparently missed it.

There is a difference between a conspiracy, of which the official narrative certainly portrays and conspiracism. Real world conspiracies are limited in scale, scope and duration and are almost invariably revealed. Conspiracism however is a worldview that portrays conspiracies that are vast and impenetrable where fact becomes fiction, fiction becomes fact and the lack of evidence for an assertion is seen as proof positive of that assertion. And while not all who question the official narrative are conspiracists, I could not name a single luminary in the so-called 9-11 Truth movement who is not a conspiracist.

[Grateful for Hope]

22. I am willing to entertain the possibility

that many who question the OCT are conspiracists. I am wondering, however, how you were able to make this statement:

I could not name a single luminary in the so-called 9-11 Truth movement who is not a conspiracist.

Is it that you have thoroughly researched their works prior to 9/11?


on edit...hit "post" before I was finished. Duh!

[salvorhardin]

24. Because they are conspiracists now

Does not mean they need be conspiracists in the past -- or vice versa. People change. I'm one of them. If you research my earlier posts on DU you will find me advancing conspiracist ideas. A person who went the other way is mathematician A.K. Dewdney (a man I very much respect). I couldn't say specifically how or why either one of us changed our beliefs, although with 9-11 and myself it was a gradual process of finding every claim made by the 9-11 Truth Movement that lent credence to my belief that 9-11 was at least LIHOP was factually incorrect. And no, I could not list them all. They were legion. The question of military jet intercept times was one of those beliefs though (this has been recently discussed in this forum).

[Grateful for Hope]

29. Ok

But, if a person is a conspiracist, does this not mean that they have a world view that things are never what they seem - that they tend to see a conspiracy behind events that most people would not?

I don't think it is fair to characterize a 9/11 Truth Movement luminary as a conspiracist unless one can demonstrate that this is his or her tendency based on research into that person's background.

I admit I have not done this research myself -- and, I am going to take my own advice here.

[mhatrw]

107. Luminary by whose standards?

Conspiracism by whose definition?

How limited in scope was the Manhattan Project? Operation Mockingbird? The current NSA wiretapping programs?

Why is 9/11 without the help of any powerful, well-placed insiders a "sensible conspiracy" but 9/11 with the help a few powerful, well-placed insiders ridiculous "illiberal" conspiracism?

[Bryan Sacks]

37. Perhaps you can't name them, but I can

David Ray Griffin. He has what might be called a conspiracy theory of the 9/11 attacks. He is no conspiraCIST, however.

Paul Thompson is not a conspiracist.

Peter Dale Scott is not a conspiracist, unless proposing that the deep structures of the way we are systematically governed enable and can even foment the existence of operational cospiracies of great duration makes him a conspiracist.

David Kubiak, founder of 911truth.org, while not quite a 'luminary', is not a conspiracist.

I am no luminary, but have written about this very subject in the "The Hidden History of 9/11/2001". Too often, people like Chip Berlet attack 'conspiracism' as an attempt to discredit theories about particular 'operational conspiracies' (which the 9/11 attacks may well have been and instance of).

In other words, when evidence for the possibility of a limited, operational conspiracy are presented, the reply from the Berlet/Shalom/Chomskyan left is too often: 'grand conspiracism is harmful and ridiculous', and/or 'I don't want to, or don'tt have time to, argue the merits of this particular case'. They ignore the substance of the evidence being presented. When it isn't ignored, it is sometimes distorted or simply poorly understood, as this link from Berlet's own web site demonstrates.

It's a critical difference, between favoring CONSPIRACISM and arguing for the (undeniable) existence of CONSPIRACIES. Eliding the distinction is crucial to the left gatekeeping function. And I am a big fan of Chomsky, btw. These matters are complicated.

Also, please provide evidence that "conspiracies are limited in scale, scope and duration and are almost invariably revealed". If you think for a moment about your statement, I think you'll see that's very hard to do.

Conspiracism of the Larouchian, world variety is harmful, but so is Berletian gatekeeping. Eyes wide open, salvor.

edited for subject/verb agreement (might still need editing)

[mhatrw]

108. Great post.

Thanks for saving me the time it would have taken to create an inferior one.

[Bryan Sacks]

117. thanks for the kind words. And I owe a link form the post above. . .

For DRG's response to Chip Berlet's criticism of "The New Pearl Harbor", see

http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/Post911/Griffin1.html

[petgoat]

76. An accounting of what evidence has not been released.

You're not aware of the Scholars' petition for the release of suppressed evidence?


http://st911.org/petition

[HamdenRice]

10. But conspiracies do exist

It's one thing to say that the paranoid style conspiracism is harmful, if by that you mean a very definite kind of thinking and ideology.

But most of you OCTers take that argument to the extreme: that if any theory of causation requires a conspiracy, it is necessarily false.

That is simply bizarrely untrue.

There are and have been conspiracies, such as Watergate and Iran-contra -- which involved secretive and "improbably powerful organizations" such as CREEP and Olie North's loose network of arms dealers and bankers.

Heck, I've worked for a conspiracy -- and written about it on DU -- that involved illegal diplomatic dealings (illegal under another country's laws, not ours). It was a liberal conspiracy for good (it had to do with getting the South African government and ANC talking to each years before the actual negotiations and was illegal for South Africans to participate in), involved about a hundred people, including liberation organizations, church officials, foundations, banks, corporate executives, diplomats and other government officials, non-governmental organizations, and no one disclosed what was going on to the press for about 2 years. Conspiracies go on all the time, whether for good or evil purposes.

So if you say these things don't or can't exist, you are just plain wrong, and I have to dismiss you as woefully uninformed.

[salvorhardin]

12. See the second paragraph in my comment above

There are conspiracies and there is conspiracism. The two words do not describe the same phenomenon.

[HamdenRice]

13. Posts by OCTers and OCTabots rarely make any distinction nt

[salvorhardin]

15. Because they don't need to

Posts by people debunking lies, myths and distortions are concerned with the specific factual nature of the post they are replying too. Posts by people questioning unevidenced assertions made by the 9-11 Truth movement are doing due diligence to the 9-11 Truth Movement's purported claim -- to seek the truth. I am one of very few posters on all of DU who is concerned with the overall form of the 9-11 Truth Movement and I do make that distinction.

On edit: I should say it is not just the overal form of the 9-11 Truth Movement which concerns me, but rather the degree to which conspiracism has been adopted wholesale by the left. What was once the almost exclusive provenance of the far right has been mainstreamed. As I noted above, it is a harmful worldview.

[Grateful for Hope]

17. I do respect your posts

While I may not agree with you, I have seen that your posts are thoughtful and well-researched.

[salvorhardin]

19. Thanks Hope2006 n/t

[HamdenRice]

26. That's the problem in your approach

1. You are conflating conspiricism and the assertion that conspiracies do exist; and

2. Your definition of conspiracies is both factually incorrect and essentially meaningless.

You just said that you don't need to distinguish between conspiricism and the argumentative assertion that an actual conspiracy exists. In other words, you are saying that for your purposes, they are the same thing. They aren't. Not everyone who believes, for example, that the World Bank unduly and sometimes illegally affects developing country policies also believes that "the Jews" or some other group control the world.

Your definition is meaningless. You wrote: "Real world conspiracies are limited in scale, scope and duration and are almost invariably revealed. Conspiracism however is a worldview that portrays conspiracies that are vast and impenetrable..."

So let me give you a real world example that has nothing to do with 9/11 to show why this definition doesn't work, based on a real world conspiracy that has done a lot of damage and of which I have first hand experience.

South Africa has a land reform program that isn't working. It has a number of "free market" mechanisms that have prevented land reform from taking place. I wanted to know why, so I sat down with the former Minister of Land Affairs over a few beers in a Johannesburg hotel and asked him how this mechanism was developed. He explained that even before the 1994 elections, the World Bank came to the ANC in Zambia and began "advising" them on land reform. The guy at the Bank who organized this is basically a well meaning guy who really believes that peasants should have economic and political liberty, but he has a blind spot when it comes to how markets affect peasants.

With the Bank's resources, both intellectual and financial, the ANC guys were kind of overwhelmed and convinced to do it the World Bank way. The results have been a disaster.

Was this conspiracy limited in scale and duration? Well, the World Bank is big. No one said it was infinite, but I would say that the resources brought to bear were enormous, compared to the resources of their target. The effort took a few years, so I guess it was limited in duration but the effects are continuing.

The conspiracy to limit land reform through Bank intervention was not illegal, per se, but it also did not conform to the legal guidelines the South African Parliament developed for how land reform would be legislatively crafted.

Was it invariably revealed? Yes and no. The World Bank official who organized the effort wrote extensively about it in World Development, the periodical of the World Bank on development issues. You can read all about it in a research library. Do South Africans know why their land reform system isn't working? Do they know the role of the Bank? Well, no, the press hasn't picked up on it. What does revealed mean? That some people disclosed the secret or that it became common knowledge?

But your definition would either consider this first hand story to be equal to conspiracism or more accurately simply doesn't help explain what happened.

The point is that many, many policy and political decisions are made by elites behind closed doors in networks that are purposefully kept confidential. Many of these elite decisions are illegal or at least skirt the law. It is not "strange" or "unbelievable"; it's routine.

[salvorhardin]

32. Your example is not a conspiracy n/t

[HamdenRice]

33. Rhetorical victory by definition, eh?

It just wasn't right? Because Salvorhardin says so. Not very convincing.

[John Q. Citizen]

31. It is an important distiction. obviously. I think the vast majority of

people who question the unfounded conclusions of the 9/11 commision, NIST, and the media don't hold conspiacism as a world view.

There are a few who do, yet the overwhelming majority are repeatedly attacked by many defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory on this straw man argument.

Does Garrison Keelor hold a conspirasism world view? I certainly don't think so. Do the Jersey Girls or Paul Thompson hold such a view? Not that I can see. Does Dr. Steven Jones or Dylan Avery, or Hunter S. Thompson hold a conspiricism world view? Not in anyway that's apparent to me.

In fact, it is parts of our own government who promote the idea that there is a powerful shadowy world wide religious organization who is behind all the terrorist attacks that occur. The so called "war on terror" is a classic example of conspriacism run amok. The communists witch hunts of the 50's were another classic example of conspiracism. Even the so-called "domino theory" one of the driving assumptions behind our disasterous involvement in Vietnam, and our dirty wars in Latin America were fueled by a conspiracsim world view.

So why do the OCTers constantly try to pin that straw man on people who just want some answers?

[salvorhardin]

40. Interesting

Presenting a strawman arguement that decries the use of strawmen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[Bryan Sacks]

101. yet the establishment left. . .

is happy to use the spectre of the second to discredit the possibility of the first.

[AZCat]

81. Please point out when "us" OCTers (as if we were monolithic)...

declared "that if any theory of causation requires a conspiracy, it is necessarily false."

Note that finding one post where an individual makes that claim does not imply that it goes for everyone in the group of posters you have lumped together.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[salvorhardin]

30. Dude, read my post

For you though, I will repeat myself once again.

There is a difference between a conspiracy, of which the official narrative certainly portrays and conspiracism. Real world conspiracies are limited in scale, scope and duration and are almost invariably revealed. Conspiracism however is a worldview that portrays conspiracies that are vast and impenetrable where fact becomes fiction, fiction becomes fact and the lack of evidence for an assertion is seen as proof positive of that assertion. And while not all who question the official narrative are conspiracists, I could not name a single luminary in the so-called 9-11 Truth movement who is not a conspiracist.

[FourScore]

41. Again,

look at Hitler and the Holocaust. Though that terrible time in history did in fact end after 12 years of persecution, and was ultimately revealed to the world -- most germans refused to believe what was happening to their fellow citizens was truly happening at the time. They chose to believe that their neighbors suddenly "moved", or some other official version of events. It seems unbelievable to us (and most germans)now, but at the time...most of them blindly trusted their government.

How can you be so sure that your nation's leaders are not involved in a conspiracy of sorts? How can one ever be sure??? Do you think our nation is immune to such horrors? It is our DUTY as Americans to stay vigilant and ask tough questions, demand the correct answers. And when the answers don't add up, we MUST investigate further. To label those who ask the tough questions "conspiracists" is just not right. One only needs to read the PNAC website to understand that very powerful people have been planning for a very long time world events that are now occuring. What a coincidence! How interesting that an attack on the scale of "Pearl Harbor" just so happened to have occured during their reign of power. And goodness me, every step of the playbook since that time has also come to pass. But there's no conspiracy here...Just ugly old conspriacists questioning their motives.

[petgoat]

78. Doh! (Sound of hand slapping forehead)

How could I have missed that argument all these years?

What was the Third Reich if not a massive, complicated, impossibly powerful conspiracy
to try to rule the world?

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[FourScore]

94. Thanks, petgoat!

Glad to be here. And I love to read your posts!

[mirandapriestly]

51. The original theory is a "conspiracy" theory that has not

been proved. Since when is a government lie a fact? No one has been charged with 9-11 and no attempt has been made to locate and prosecute Osama bin Laden. The Bush administration has lied a number of times to achieve their goals and they have shown indifference to the lives of Americans. There is nothing paranoid about believing this is another lie.

I'll tell you what is harmful, the lies of this administration and the "Bush science" they promote (including that for 9-11) are harmful. But I never see any of you talk about that, instead you go after a handful of internet posters in a back forum.

[BootinUp]

56. posting so I can find this

later. Looks interesting. thanks,

[mhatrw]

103. So powerful people never plan or act in concert?

Iran-Contra, the Gulf of Tonkin, Operation Northwoods, the Enron scandal, cigarette and asbestos companies' suppression of their own medical evidence, the EPA's post-9/11 "the air is just fine" announcements, the Plame leak, CIA drug smuggling, MK Ultra, Operation Mockingbird, the Manhattan Project, etc., etc., etc. were all just a dream!

Thank God!

[greyl]

104. Jumpinjesus, read the post. nt

[mogster]

146. So why do we then believe in Al-Queda?

In my country I have to live with media and an establishment that seriously believe that Muslims have come to Europe to conquer us, thinking as one, and are now conspiring to take over (by around 2060) with sheer fucking power.
That is; takeover by fornication.

Muslims in Europe come from more than 50 different countries, have all sorts of political outlooks, have friends, families, kids, TVs, jobs - in fact, they're just like us in every manner but one; they blow themselves up while wating for year 2060, when they don't have to do that anymore, because they can then vote us straight out of power and enforce sharia.

Never mind that Muslims don't seem to be too interested in politics, being underrepresented in our parliament. Never mind that they focus on Muslim homelands like Pakistan or Somalia, and their relatives stuck there because our immigration laws has narrowed the opportunity to reunite in a free country - which they fled to supposedly because they wanted to be free, in the first place.

Instead I'm to believe in a yapping dolt like mr. Carl I. Hagen, who last year thought WWIII started in France because youth rioted in response to a racist Minister of Interior. Hagen - a man so close to Bush & Blair politically you can't tell the difference. Leading a party with clear nazi ties, and with a second in command that - failing to convince the majority of Norwegians that year 2060 poses a clear and present danger - has gone for the capital Oslo, where the number of Muslims are much higher than in Norway at large, and are claiming (despite the foreamentioned lack of political interest by the Muslim community) that they now will take over Oslo, and enforce local sharia.

[Sinti]

18. Hi whereismyparty. I don't mean to sound trite, but the ignore button

is your friend. If you put those individuals who add nothing to the conversation, and resort to insults on ignore, it's actually a quite wonderful and useful forum, with a wide range of points of view, particular focuses and information. We have some disbelievers who are, IMO, intellectually honest, and willing to accept things given proof. OTOH, we have an abundance of posters who post the same tired stuff again, and again, even after it's been proven to be false, and are unwilling, or unable, to explore any possibilities outside of the government approved version of events.

Come, join the conversation! We could use your open mind, and don't let the bastards grind you down. Their either paid or drowning in Kool-Aid, so there's nothing you can do about them until the whole truth is known. :smoke:

[FourScore]

27. Sinti!! Very cool advice!

So you're saying that I can click ignore on those people who I don't feel adds to the discussion and their posts miraculously disappear from the threads on my screen? Am I understanding that correctly???

[Sinti]

34. Like Magic! and it becomes a nice place again ;) n/t

[FourScore]

42. Cool! Very cool!

Thanks for the tip.

[Grateful for Hope]

38. Try it...

when you click ignore, then all subsequent posts (and threads) by that poster display as "Ignored". It is very cool, and can be very helpful.

[Ferry Fey]

83. Ignore button also cuts out overview of forum dynamics

The ignore button's an imperfect solution. It's a passive way of dealing with interpersonal problems in a forum -- it doesn't make the problems go away, just hides them from a user's sight. Your adversary doesn't stop manipulating, distracting, or stirring up shit just because you can't see what they are saying.

But in some cases, when someone knows your hot buttons, or tends to frequently say things that you really feel need refuting, it's better than nothing. It's really hard sometimes keeping from taking poisoned bait, and the ignore button does take that temptation away.

I have participated in a lot of online forums over the years, and I have to say that petgoat is one of the best I've ever encountered, in terms of staying focused and on message and not letting people distract him. We can all learn a lot from him.

[Grateful for Hope]

91. Hear hear!

I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of Petgoat!

[greyl]

95. That's not a bad point.

I hadn't put anyone on ignore for a few years for similar reasons. It was only until earlier this year that I did, and it was only to discourage a few certain posters from posting distracting nonsense in response to me. It was only after deciding they were trolling for attention and didn't care about reasonable discussion, iow. Fwiw, at least a couple of those screen names have since been banned.
A few weeks ago, I purged my ignore list after it became apparent that there was a forum dynamic, as you put it, in which a very few people would poison-the-well against people who disagreed with them by making posts that were less than honest, and less than conducive to discussion.

It's fascinating to me, that in this thread, there are 3 people who rallied another new DUer to put people on ignore(me being an obvious target), but only 1 of those people has me(or sal) on ignore. Isn't that peculiar?
I can't rule out that those 2 people would rather disrupt conversation than help it along.

[Grateful for Hope]

145. Can you be more specific?

I find this paragraph to be most mystifying:

It's fascinating to me, that in this thread, there are 3 people who rallied another new DUer to put people on ignore(me being an obvious target), but only 1 of those people has me(or sal) on ignore. Isn't that peculiar?
I can't rule out that those 2 people would rather disrupt conversation than help it along.

Just wonder how you know you were the "obvious target"? Also, please provide links that would substantiate your last comment.

[greyl]

You're misrepresenting what I said again.

I didn't say I was the obvious target.

Btw, I'm sure the person who was encouraged to put me on ignore will enjoy seeing my paragraph quoted by you. Thanks for your assistance in the matter.
:headbang:

[HughBeaumont]

143. I don't put EVERY OCT'er on ignore.

Just the ones who drop ad hominems like the runs and are continually allowed to do so for some mysterious reason. These people add shit-all to the dialogue and are nothing but a snarky annoyance.

[mirandapriestly]

20. It is very strange

considering the number of people to doubt the official theory has gone up dramatically, while those who post on a progressive forum who support the official theory go up which defies logic, doesn't it?

[salvorhardin]

23. Argumentum ad populum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Because a large number of people believe something does not make it true.

[HamdenRice]

28. Tell that to DARPA re terrorism futures

While it is true that in some areas, large numbers of people believe incorrect things, it is also true that in general, the more people who believe something the more likely it is to be true. OCTers and OCTabots regularly trot out this meaningless red herring, but the most powerful institutions in the country take a contrary view.

DARPA was roundly criticized for trying to establish a terrorism futures market. The idea was that if people believed that an incident was likely to occur, that that belief reflected valid information that had leaked into the market.

The stock market itself relies on the idea that the vast majority of investors create and use a market for information that accurately predicts the performance of companies. Sometimes they are wrong, as when a bubble occurs, but generally the stock market reflects information avaible to investors.

Democracy is based on the same idea -- that it is a self correcting political mechanism based on information available to the public.

The fact that more and more people believe that the government was complicit in 9/11 is prima facie evidence that information is getting to the public, they are weighing it, and drawing rational conclusions.

OCTers and OCTabots seem to believe that if the public believes it, it cannot be true.

[Grateful for Hope]

35. My interpretation

Is that MP's post is not speaking about the veracity of 9/11 doubts, but is simply pointing out that while the percentage of people in the general population doubting the OCT has increased considerably, the percentage of OCT defenders posting in this forum has also increased.

I can't agree or disagree as I have not kept track of the actual number of posters, but, it is my impression that the actual number of posts may have increased - it almost seems like desperation to me.

[mirandapriestly]

52. Yeah, a lot of people believe what the bush

administration says about 9-11 is true

[salvorhardin]

59. And if any of those people were to use argumentum ad populum

I would be as equally disinclined to consider their argument as I do when you use it.

[John Q. Citizen]

70. Straw man argument once again, salvorhardin. miranda said that

it seems strange that as more in the general public are starting to doubt the OCT, that there appears to her to be a corresponding increase in those supporting the OCT in here.

miranda never made any claim as to the number of people who doubt the OCT in any way implies that the OCT is incorrect.

She simply stated her own observation which in no way conferred legitimacy or illegitimacy on the OCT.

Either you didn't read miranda's post carefully and jumped to an ill-founded conclusion, or you are being intellectually dishonest.
Please re-read her post and show where she links the number of people who doubt the OCT to the reliability of the OCT.

If you can't show that miranda used "argumentum ad populum," then I believe it is incumbent on you to apologize to miranda and admit your error.


Thanks.

[mirandapriestly]

71. Completely irrelevant to my post. I did not say that many people

disbelieve the official theory, therefore the theory is true. I was making a totally different point. I was saying the number of people who disbelieve the gov't version of effects on 911 is increasing and the number of people posting on the 9-11 forum who DO support the official theory is also increasing. I find these two phenomenon to be at odds with each other.
The ad poplum definition has absolutely nothing to do with my post! In fact I would say that the ad populum definition is something that describes what is going on with believers of the OCT.

[greyl]

39. Let me get this straight.

Are you suggesting that the S/11 forum at DU is the venue of a conspiracy designed to cover-up other conspiracies?

Please check out salvorhardin's links regarding conspiracism in post #8.

[FourScore]

43. I think I'll try the "ignore" trick.

What fun!

[Grateful for Hope]

44. Isn't it? n/t

[greyl]

47. So, you aren't interested in furthering the discussion

which you began? You're making it much too easy to "thwart any intellectual discussion about legitimate questions pertaining to 9/11".

Fyi, you should check out the DU rules. It's a violation to claim you're going to put someone on ignore if you don't actually do it. As yet, you haven't put me on ignore. edit: Now you have. You're welcome for the helpful advice.

[HamdenRice]

49. Mr. Pot? I have the pleasure of introducing you to Mr. Kettle

Like you are "interested in furthering the discussion" rather than "thwart<ing> any intellectual discussion"?

Wait a minute, weren't you just calling people who question the OCT "total idiots" in another thread?

[greyl]

67. That idiom isn't appropriate here.

I asked a reasonable question to someone who was saying they were interested in the ability to have discussions here. So, they promptly said they were going to ignore me. I then asked another reasonable question accompanied by some friendly advice which nobody else, apparently, bothered to give them before stirring the pot.

Like you are "interested in furthering the discussion" rather than "thwart<ing> any intellectual discussion"?

Yes, I am. I much prefer dealing with the particulars of the arguments at hand rather than attacking the people making the arguments.

Wait a minute, weren't you just calling people who question the OCT "total idiots" in another thread?

I question our government's account. I called a select few who I believe are asking many of the wrong questions, "Scholars for 9/11 Truth", total idiots right here.
It would be a huge mistake to assume that anyone who puts on our uniform, so to speak, is a reasonable genius who has our best Democratic interests in mind. Fact is, many of them are total idiots, and some CTists even speculate that many of them are the most likely paid shills.
Btw, today in another thread that has nothing to do with 9/11, didn't you choose to attack me personally rather than discuss the issues at hand? I think the "pot, meet kettle" idiom is appropriate coming from me to you.

[HamdenRice]

45. Information Operations Roadmap-- DOD Studies Blogs as Terror-Fighting Tool

Pentagon Studies Blogs as Terror-Fighting Tool

By Rory O'Connor

Alternet

July 19, 2006

The Defense Department is seeking to create a powerful and sophisticated new weapon to help win the Global War on Terror -- a blog search engine. "We're out to make a machine that will analyze blogs in real time," says Dr. Brian E. Ulicny, a senior scientist for the defense contractor charged with development of the new terror-fighting tool.

Can blogs really help "information analysts and warfighters" combat terrorism? The Air Force Office of Scientific Research is betting nearly half a million dollars that the answer is "Sir, yes, sir!" The money will go to a Massachusetts firm called Versatile Information Systems Inc., to pay for a three-year project entitled "Automated Ontologically Based Link Analysis of International Web Logs for the Timely Discovery of Relevant and Credible Information."

In plainer English, that translates into the creation of a "topic-specific blog search and analytic tool that will apply novel metrics" to analyze links and patterns within the blogosphere, according to Ulicny. Those patterns include the content of blogs as well as hyperlinks contained within them. "The focus will be on those that are part of the national security and foreign relations domain," Ulicny explains. "After all, the Air Force is not particularly interested in blog postings about Lindsay Lohan.

and:

Rumsfeld Zeros in on the Internet

By Mike Whitney

...

A “public affairs” strategy is at the heart of the new paradigm, replete with “rapid response” teams to address the nagging issues of bombed-out wedding parties, starving prisoners, and devastated cities. No problem is so great that it can’t be papered-over by a public relations team trained in the black-art of deception, obfuscation, and slight-of-hand. Trickery now tops the list of military priorities.

“US Central Command has launched an online communications effort that includes electronic news updates and a links campaign that has resulted in several hundred blogs receiving and publishing CENTCOM content.”

[salvorhardin]

53. Please provide links for online sources

Pentagon Studies Blogs as Terror-Fighting Tool
http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/39227

Rumsfeld Zeros in on the Internet
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article12060.htm

Now, what do the two articles have to do with each other?

[HamdenRice]

54. They demonstrate

that the Rumsfeld Defense Department has a comprehensive program for creating a web presence to both monitor web content and proactively get its message across, without regard to boundaries or the traditional prohibition against federally funded propoganda being disseminated in the United States.

And given past precedent, if this is what they are disclosing, one can assume the programs of DOD and other agencies are actually larger.

Remember those Kuwaiti babies that Sadam's forces were supposedly taking out of their incubators and killing?

The internet did not exist then in its current proliferated form, but Rumsfeld, always the forward thinker, has a program for the new information environment.

[salvorhardin]

57. Federally funded propaganda is a problem

In particular, the video news releases that the Agriculture Dept. produced and distributed.

I do not see evidence though where Rumsfeld or people under him are posting on DU. At any given time there are only a few thousand (much less than the ~94,000 user registrations) active posters on DU. Given DU's audience those posters tend to be highly politically motivated on the left and are probably (for the most part) unassailable to propaganda. So I find it rather untenable that DU, or any individual blog, would be the target of a propaganda or monitoring campaign. Isn't it the height of hubris (or paranoia) to think you and your friends and associates have been personally selected out for such?

[HamdenRice]

62. DU is small but influential

They are part of a network that creates an alternative reality. DU and Kos topics tend to cross fertilize and good posts get picked up by Air America.

I would be shocked if the DOD or some intel agency was not monitoring DU or even participating.

In the 1980s, South African intel sent agents to infiltrate wimpy social science faculty seminars in both South Africa, the UK and US, and opened assistant professors' mail. If you don't think a group of tens of thousands -- whose views are from time to time picked up by the blogosphere and progressive communications networks -- attracts the attention of intel agencies, you are very naive.

[salvorhardin]

64. I really don't think you are in a position to judge my naivite

With regard to intelligence agencies.

[HamdenRice]

65. So you know a lot about intelligence agencies?

Maybe that explains some of the positions you take on these boards.

[salvorhardin]

66. Non sequitor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29

[mhatrw]

110. Is that some sort of confession?

Just wondering ...

[John Q. Citizen]

63. Wait a minute...

Are you actually suggesting the bush administration would try to limit or control the free flow of information?

More proof that CTer's mostly have a conspiracism world view.../sarcasm :-)

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[John Q. Citizen]

72. Thanks for the link. It was my first trip there.

What they call skepticism often seems to be an excuse to revel in their own superiority complexes. The heavy use of ridicule and the
lighter sprinkling of logic (there is some, to be fair) makes it appear that the main thrust is ego tripping.

Just my observation after a few minutes.

And it does appear that a number of the OCTers who post here are also there in abundance, as this thread would indicate:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=247x7263

[Grateful for Hope]

74. Amazing

I was just about to post that thread (went and checked out the group after HR mentioned it). I think that thread provides a lot of insight.

[John Q. Citizen]

77. They say, "Great minds think alike," Hope...

as do petty ones, apparently, if that thread is any indication.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Make7]

86. Would you care to explain the context of posts #2 to #4 in that thread?

What are they talking about?

salvorhardin: "Thanks for the assist guy."

boloboffin: "Absolutely. It's not often that miranda puts his/er foot into his/er mouth so firmly."

salvorhardin: "Yep. That one had to hurt."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=247x7263#7265

What exactly did you say in the C-Span thread?

- Make7

[mirandapriestly]

87. the only thing I can find

is I said boloboffin tries to get threads deleted, but he DOES, he even admitted it to me in a thread I made about V for Vendetta he said he contacted Skinner (although Skinner said he did not know who he was, because I posted to him (and I have the email))
bb is free to respond to that since he posts in the same forum. Posting about a poster from a different forum without saying specifically what you are talking about is different. But if you are biased and share the opinion of those posters like you are then you won't see it that way. You will defend people whose behavior is unreasonable because you see it as justified.
I doubt that is what he was talking about though cuz he would have just alerted it.

[Make7]

89. I'm surprised you didn't remember.

The issue was with salvorhardin, that's why he is the first to mention it in the thread that you linked to. The thread they are talking about is this one:

    Certfied OFFICIAL thread on 9/11 panel on C SPAN - 8 PM

Once that loads, do a text search for "Bullshit. Just like your post" and then "easily disproven". I imagine that should refresh your memory.

If you do not wish to wait for the whole thread to load or do a search, here are direct links to those posts:

    Post #53 and Post #54

And this might explain why you had difficulty finding what they were referring to:

    Post #47

So - would you care to explain what you said in that post that led someone to describe it as you putting your foot in your mouth?

- Make7

[Grateful for Hope]

90. The point JohnQ made still stands

Your forgot to mention this one, BTW:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=102508&mesg_id=103245


which is a response to this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=102508&mesg_id=102648

BTW, post #47 has been deleted.



edited to add an additional link.

[Make7]

92. Why stop at those two posts? Why not go back a couple more?

Edited to add third link

Just to remind you of the time frame, I've included the dates and times of the posts. miranda's post misrepresenting salvorhardin's DU posting history was on Jul-29-06 10:41 PM. Her error was pointed out to her twice within ten minutes.

salvorhardin wrote on Jul-30-06 03:10 AM:

Still waiting on the apology.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=102508&mesg_id=102582

mirandapriestly wrote on Jul-30-06 03:16 AM:

Never. You make remarks about people being "crazy" and less intelligent than you (now that IS an insult) & you want an apology? Not til you pry the mouse from my cold, dead hand and type it yourself..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=102508&mesg_id=102585

Which leads into the two posts that you linked to.

Allow me to summarize the timeline. miranda misrepresents salvorhardin's posting history. Ten minutes later he responds to tell her what she posted is not true. At the same time boloboffin after actually having performed a search concerning his posting history, also posts a reply to tell her she is wrong. (So far I think we can conclude a search can be easily be done in a few minutes or less.) Does miranda at this point do a search to find out if she was mistaken and should correct her error? That seems unlikely if one considers her post above was over four hours later and she still expressed an unwillingness to apologize. Then we have her apology which, if we assume it was also for the original misrepresentation of his posting history and not just for the post quoted above, came over 30 hours later in a different thread.

A search would have taken less than three minutes. A search that could have easily been performed before she made the post misrepresenting salvorhardin's posting history. Is it so difficult to verify something like that before posting to make sure that it is accurate?

Hope2006 wrote:

BTW, post #47 has been deleted.

Which is why I said that it "might explain why you (miranda) had difficulty finding what they were referring to". I think from the responses to that deleted post the context of the discussion can be determined rather easily. But since you decided to answer a post intended for miranda, would you care to explain what she said in that post?

- Make7

[Grateful for Hope]

93. No I wouldn't

you have hijacked what this subthread was all about. I don't care what MP said - if it was against the rules, the post got deleted. However, this does not make talking about her in another group ok. One of the most offending posts in that thread was deleted this AM - "talking out of it's arse" was the comment in reference to MP. Nice. In addition, that thread was locked this AM.

You seem intent on pointing out MP's past posting history. You have done this time and again.

The reason is beyond me.

Mods, if this post is breaking some rules, I apologize in advance.

[salvorhardin]

96. My ears are burning... is someone talking about me?

Actually Hope2006, my 'talking of of it's arse' comment is still there as of 10:23AM EST. It probably should be deleted though because it is over-the-top.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=247&topic_id=7263&mesg_id=7267

I think you can understand the frame of mind I was in at the time after what mirandapriestly had claimed about my posting history, without even trying to verify her claim. Then not very many hours later she did the same thing in claiming that I accused her of being crazy and less intelligent than myself.

mirandapriestly eventually did apologize after that second incident and I accepted. Whether or not that was intended to cover the earlier incident I don't know and I don't particularly care. As far as I'm concerned, after our PM exchange yesterday it is in the past and we can move on.

[Grateful for Hope]

109. I did not see the post in question early this AM (not awake enough?)

and, I deliberately did not mention your name in my post as it was more about the point I was making than who the poster was.

I absolutely agree that it would be a good thing to move on.

Thanks, Salvorhardin.

[Make7]

136. time and again

Hope2006 wrote:

you have hijacked what this subthread was all about. I don't care what MP said - if it was against the rules, the post got deleted. However, this does not make talking about her in another group ok.

miranda made a post that only said, "yes, take a look at this" and then gave a link to that thread in the skeptics group. In response, I have pointed out the reason that the posters in question were talking about miranda over there.

She made that thread a subject for discussion by linking to it. Whether talking about her in another group is right or wrong, or whether or not you care about the actual reason she was mentioned, does not change the fact that my talking about that other thread was in response to a subject that was posted by miranda.

Hope2006 wrote:

You seem intent on pointing out MP's past posting history. You have done this time and again.

The reason is beyond me.

The reason for this particular instance is given above. As far as previous cases, I have been clear on my reason. I believe I have stated the reason in one form or another each time I have done this. For example, the following is reply that I posted to miranda: (be sure to scroll down and read the next few posts as well)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x107874#107953

- Make7

[Grateful for Hope]

140. Give it up

this is getting pretty old.

[Make7]

142. Until next time then. ( n/t )

[mirandapriestly]

151. Notice how make7 puts miranda in bold

so that the casual observer will discredit me. Who was it that posted MIRANDAPRIESTLY IS A LIAR all over the forum one day? Can't remember , but I believe one of those involved was someone you have often ganged up with and is now banned.

[Make7]

153. I usually put all DU member names in bold. See Post #92.

Here is a link: Post #92

Are you suggesting that I am trying to discredit you, salvorhardin, and boloboffin in that post?

Here is an example from April of this year:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=81575&mesg_id=81582

Is it your contention that I am trying to discredit LARED by putting his name in bold?

Here is another example from earlier this month:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=107186&mesg_id=107963

Am I also trying to discredit AZCat and Hope2006?

When did that happen? I never saw anyone posting that "all over the forum one day". Was there some reason that they would do such a thing?

- Make7

[greyl]

154. I thought Make7 was speaking to

the careful observer.

Maybe it's just me.

[FourScore]

73. I'm LOVIN' that "ignore" feature!!!

What a great tip!!!

[screembloodymurder]

75. Could be

we're in the dungeon to keep the paid operatives out of the other forums.

[Jazz2006]

82. Do you honestly believe

that there are paid operatives here at DU?

Serious question.

[John Q. Citizen]

98. Sure there are, but in what capacity I couldn't begin to know. Undoubtedly

someone who is paid by someone checks in on some schedule to see what people are saying about a whole lot of different topics.

I imagine that staffers to various politicians, or campaign staff people, or (the possibilities are endless) check in to promote their interests or to see what's going down.

Reporters/commentators have run stories about what somebody sometime posted in DU, and i bet they paid someone to do the research, or they were paid themselves for their own story that they did there own research on.

Does that surprise you?

[greyl]

120. You may be interested in this 9/11 forum poll:

Do right wing trolls who support wild conspiracy theories exist?

Results at this moment:
No - 3
Yes - 17

(it is not a scientific poll)

[canetoad]

124. No, not at all.

20 responses is a fine sample of society.

[greyl]

125. Not at all what, the "scientific" part?

Yeah, really. You may be interested in the commentary that accompanies the poll then.

[canetoad]

130. I read it

reflects the demographic and the views of regular posters to this forum. No surprises there.

[mirandapriestly]

121. yes, they have entire countries on their client lists

Burson-Marsteller, a global communications and public relations firm, is creating an alliance with Cyveillance to allow Burson-Marsteller's corporate and institutional clients to track and respond to that which is being said about them across the Internet
Cyveillance's technology is capable of scouring the entire Internet at high speed to locate, filter and prioritize company or institution-specific dialogue, offering clients the ability to address potential issues such as negative comments about the corporation, a brand, or their service reputations
http://dc.internet.com/news/print.php/942201

[mhatrw]

111. Do you honesty believe that there are none?

Serious question.

Yes, Virginia, there are public relation departments.

[screembloodymurder]

132. W/O a Doubt.

I'd wager there are political operatives and FBI agents monitoring the site.

[mirandapriestly]

88. never thought about that,hmmm

the "thought police" in other forums are more subtle, but I think there still there.

[Peeves]

99. I give up. Could someone please explain to me what OCT is ...?

I mean besides a abbr. for OCTober ...

[FourScore]

100. official conspiracy theory

as opposed to the conspiracy theory hypothosized by many here on this forum.

[earth mom]

102. I think 9/11 CT suppression is being done by a well organized group.

A short while ago, someone posted a thread about an online site that works to counteract information they disagree with. I can't search for the thread because I haven't donated-could be a silent protest of what's going on here on DU with 9/11 truth or could be that I'm broke-I'll never tell, lol. Though I would not be surprised if that thread had completely disappeared by now...

I've also recently started using the ignore feature and agree that it works well. Except that there is ALWAYS someone new popping up to gum up the works in every forum not just this one! And gum up the works they do, as evidenced by this thread. Looks like I will be adding a few more to my list today...

[SidDithers]

105. Here, I went and found a few threads for you...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1438787
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1447189
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1444469

with the appropriate response from Skinner:



Sid

[greyl]

106. That's gold, Jerry! Gold!!! nt

[Grateful for Hope]

112. I do not believe there are paid infiltrators here

but, the opinion of one person does not constitute proof one way or another, despite how highly regarded that person is (and I am one who very much respects Skinner's postings).

I do think there are people posting here who have an awful lot of time on their hands. But, are they paid to infiltrate - I doubt it. This is largely because I haven't seen what I would think would be extremely professional debunking if posters were paid (and trained) to do it.

I think this forum is probably only important to DU members who have an interest in discussing 9/11.

[canetoad]

113. If there are paid infiltrators here

whoever is paying them is wasting their money!

[Grateful for Hope]

114. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! n/t

[mirandapriestly]

137. I have to say that they make me more convinced

adamant of my views. But they scare off new people and also create the superficial illusion that they are "debunking", so the casual visitors might think well, no one is proving anything here, see this guy says their post is ridiculous. Also it is very difficult to get anything accomplished on a thread, because of the interruptions. So they do have a function.

LOL on your comment, though...

[mirandapriestly]

138. It does seem organized overall

I mean on "the internets" not just this forum. I agree. I remember there were several posts. One was on a government military group that posts on forums, the other was on a pr company that detects trends in the "backwaters of the internet". It definitely does happen. I had a post removed about one of them. I have something interesting that I will share with you in a pm.

[canetoad]

115. Godwin's Law

Usenet, the grubby underbelly of the internet, populated by extremists and nutters of every persuasion, has spawned Godwin's Law (also Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogie). It states:

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

"There is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress." (Wikipedia)

I would like to propose a variation to Godwin's Law; that whoever mentions tin-foil first has effectively finished all rational discussion in the thread and is considered the loser.

[Grateful for Hope]

116. Very good point

I think I would add that the tin-foil mention illustrates an inability to entertain all possibilities. It is a "knee-jerk" reaction.

BTW...remember chat? There is a room open!

[greyl]

118. Ya really think so?

canetoad: whoever mentions tin-foil first has effectively finished all rational discussion in the thread and is considered the loser.

In this case, it's you.

[canetoad]

123. lol, yet, already thought about that

That I am the loser and the thread is now closed.

Shit happens man.

[greyl]

126. So much for intellectual discussions then, eh? nt

[canetoad]

127. Point me to a law thats says

all discussion must be 'intellectual'.

I guess we would first have to define what we considered 'intellectual'. Then we would have to write guidelines. Then enforce penalties for those who breached the guidelines.

Sometimes you debate, sometimes you just hang out to hear what people say.

[greyl]

133. My comment was in the context of this thread's original post

in which the phrase "effort to thwart any intellectual discussion" was used.

[canetoad]

128. AND.....

you never got back to me on the proposed revision to Godwin's Law.

[greyl]

134. Yeah sure, as long you include OCTer.

:tinfoilhat:

[mirandapriestly]

122. or "cters"

when people hear the words "conspiracy theorist" the subject loses all credibility I have noticed that most mainstream press uses this term when discussing 911 . They don't mention the lack of proof given for the official theory.

[canetoad]

131. miranda, your life is not a database

and no bastard is entitled to make you fit their data-field-parameters.

You enhance the discussion with your honesty and passion for the subject, and often disrupt what is no more that an I-Can-Piss-Further-and-Faster fest. Don't let em wear u down.

[mirandapriestly]

135. It sure is not what I expected

on a progressive site.

[Grateful for Hope]

141. Well said

it is often "I will get the last word in if it kills me" kind of mindset here. Nevermind that the last word is usually meaningless.

[Grateful for Hope]

129. Kick,,,

[sofa king]

139. May I say something?

First of all, I'm right with you guys when it comes to thinking that our government is behind the attacks of 9/11.

However, I'm also a trained sifter of evidence, and a big fan of logic. The 9/11 conspiracy is not a friggin' playground for any damned moonbat to create a choose-your-own-adventure story out of it. Those are the people who are damaging the credibility of the movement. It's easy for a lazy or unacquainted person to sit here and look at someone arguing ad infinitum about miniature passenger planes shooting missiles and dismimss the whole damned thing as bullshit.

You guys aren't going to get me off the ball on the plane-into-the-Pentagon thing. I've seen the building, I've seen the hole in it, I've talked to a guy who watched the plane fly in front of him on I-395, along with about five thousand other people sitting in traffic that day. It happened. Those of you attempting to create a coherent story about what else happened on that day need to deal with that important reality, or the rest of us are just going to throw our hands up and say "screw it." (There is something I desperately wish I could tell you people about that incident, but if I did fear I'd be disappeared so fast it would make my disembodied head spin. Someday, I hope, you'll find it. If you follow the motives, you will.)

That said, you guys have turned my attention to several other things that I previously viewed with skepticism which seem to be holding up quite well. The collapse of WTC-7 is suspicious in the extreme, and it might be the best indicator of motive in this whole story. My friend at the Washington Post told me the same story some of you tell about one of Flight 93's engines being found five miles away (and he says the Post was told in no uncertain terms to never, ever report that)--and I specifically remember arguing against that idea right here. The outright lies accepted as truth by the 9/11 Commission, and the subsequent rewards some of the members of that Commission have received is also disconcerting, as is Jack Abramoff's transparent attempts to make the terrorists on his cruise ship go away (who could "Sholom" and "KWH" be?).

But you folks should be welcoming honest skepticism, because seriously, if it doesn't pass our collective muster, it ain't never getting out of this dungeon. You also should rightly be concerned about those who would use sophistry to distract from the arguments you are making. The two things are not the same things. What might be the same thing are he batshit crazy lunatics and the hard-line OCT (whatever that means) people, because together they're doing a helluva great job of keeping this whole thing on the radical fringe.

I'll keep driving by and calling "bullshit" on what I see as bullshit, and sometimes, as the past has shown, I will be wrong. But making me and other people like me go away won't help your case at all. I don't rag on some of you guys because I want to harm your arguments. I want to help you build and honest and truthful picture of what really happened, no matter where that truth leads.

So, um, I hope you guys aren't talking about me, I guess is what I'm saying.

[FourScore]

144. I'm definitely not talking about you.

I think this is one of the most honest and thoughtful posts on this thread. Personally, I can't understand the whole "no-plane" theories either. I wonder sometimes if they are a form of disinformation meant to discredit the whole "truth movement". If it is a form of disinformation, then it works quite well. It's hard enough to convince someone to look at building 7 collapse with a critical eye.

You've probably already seen the website

www.pentagonresearch.com

If not, you should. It's quite well researched, although he does need to update it quite a bit.

I did not know that the engine to 93 was found five miles from the crash site. I find the whole Flight 93 story to be so unusual. I also find the flight path of 77 to be quite odd. Certainly no amatuer flew that course. But then, who did?

I am starting to form a personal theory (albeit there is no HARD evidence to support it.) It looks like this:

Imagine that people within the government knew about the terrorists intentions and just let that part happen. Even covertly supported it. Simultaneously, they rigged the planes with Raytheon remote control so that they would remain in control of the events. If they were rigged, it would be imperative that the planes be so destroyed that no evidence of the remote control devices would remain. Thus highly explosive devices were also planted within the planes to assure maximum destruction upon impact. That would explain the "mushroom cloud" and the strange debris field at the Pennsylvania crash site as well as the unusual damage done to the Pentagon. (Not to mention all the high level Raytheon employees that were on numerous planes.) I don't know. Just sort of a theory I am beginning to form.

Anyway, just a thought...

[greyl]

155. Nice post. I totally agree with

a lot of what you said. Well done.
:thumbsup:

[sofa king]

156. Update: I'm just gonna say it.

At the urging of one of our readers I've decided to stop messing around and just tell you what I've heard. Note that this is not what I know, this is just what I heard, in a drunken conversation in a bar here in Arlington. I'm genuinely concerned that someone else is going to come after me to find out exactly what I know, but things aren't looking so good for me anyway these days so maybe this is the last decent thing I can do.

I was told that the attacks on the Pentagon managed to take out the entire Department of Defense counterterrorism unit. All of them--the general in charge, his senior staff, all of their paperwork, and most of their electronic records.

That's it. That's all of it.

But what really freaks me out is how much it explains, and potentially explains. Some readers here have puzzled over why the pilot who hit the Pentagon set up such an unusual approach. If what I heard is true, the answer is because the pilot was specifically trying to hit the outer ring of a particular section of the building.

If other rumors about WTC-7 holding counterterrorism units of the FBI, CIA, and INS are true as well, what we have is the complete destruction of America's ability to track down the people who perpetrated the attacks.

How in the hell could twenty illegal immigrants have known this when the rest of us still don't? That's what sold me on the idea that the attacks were facilitated by people within the U.S. government. That's why I keep coming back to Jack Abramoff and that mysterious now-forgotten visit by four of the hijackers to his cruise ship on September 5, 2001. Abramoff was the perfect guy to communicate between Mossad, the White House, and the terrorists, and sure as shit, there he was right in the middle of it. The FBI walked off with his surveillance tapes and they've never been seen again.

They say that evidence is the foundation of all cases, but motive is what wins those cases. Here, the motive is so alarmingly obvious to me that it's difficult to think of anything else. With the destruction of the old counterterror system, Donald Rumsfeld was able to create an entirely new one, beholden only to him, hidden behind the folds of the DoD and its contractors, with access to two trillion "missing" dollars within DoD, and perfectly positioned to do it again, whenever they wish.

So there it is. I really hope someone gets out there and tries to verify this story, because I think it's a key piece in the puzzle. Good luck--to all of us.

[FourScore]

157. Wow.

How can one verify that?

[sofa king]

158. I don't know how to verify it.

I've tried to verify it to my own satisfaction, which is a far less stringent standard of evidence than I use professionally, and can't.

Most of my own interest has centered upon the death of Lt. Gen. Timothy Maude, the only general officer I know of to be acknowledged as killed in the Pentagon attack. The official story is that he was in charge of recruitment, and at one point he testified before the Senate in favor of the videogame, "America's Army."

Another option might be to check and see which other general officers died on or about that date. Still another would be to find someone who actually knows and is willing to talk about it. There's no way in hell that others in the Pentagon that day didn't hear something about it. The problem is finding someone willing to risk his or her life and career to confirm it.

Someone was willing to tell the story to me, once, years ago. Fortunately I never caught that guy's name or even found out exactly what he did. I guess the real trick will be finding Ellsberg-type characters who put it all together for themselves and get as concerned about it as I've been.

[graphicequaliser]

147. Why did they come down so fast?

The one piece of irrefutable evidence that a cover-up is going on, is simply that the twin towers would have taken far longer to fall to the ground (if ever) than the 8.4 seconds speed-of-gravity time in which they were filmed coming down. That can only mean one thing - they were demolished using explosives, and this implies that we are being lied to by the goons we are voting for. Check out http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm

[boolean]

148. OK. I'm stupid. What is OCT?

I'm trying to figure it out....

[Grateful for Hope]

149. OCT

equals "Official Conspiracy Theory".

[boolean]

150. Really?

There is an "official" conspiracy theory? Was was I not informed?

Because so far I've heard:
1) Bombs were set in the twin towers in order to demolish them perfectly
2) Helicopters flew through the dust and smoke and shot the twin towers down
3) They were not planes
4) They were planes
5) The news images were digitally altered
6) The news images (which are suddenly trustworthy) show discrepancies of some such thing
7) Flight 93 was shot down
8) Flight 93 was not a plane

[mirandapriestly]

152. So the Whitehouse and corporate media

told us that Islamic extremists flew planes into buildings and evaded FAA, NORAD, and the AIR FORCE. This theory (as it has never been proved in a court of law and few questions have been answered)is a scientific fact because the government told us it happened? Why do you put the bush administration on such a pedestal and consider what they say as fact? The FBI too, a little investigation will show you that they cover up and lie on a regular basis (especially at the upper levels), those who try to expose it within the organization are demoted and crucified publicly. Wouldn't you say this is incentive for keeping secrets if you work for the FBI and want to keep your job? The FBI handled the Pentagon exclusively and did not even allow an investigation as to why the "plane" crashed. So, why do you not consider them to be theorists? What kind of training did you have that tells you "the government is always right" ? You haven't noticed that the Bush admin. has lied about almost everything they've done since they've been in office?

As far as "bombs" go, there were many witnesses who heard explosions that day, the 9-11 Omission did not listen to any of them, NIST and FEMA (you know New Orleans FEMA?) did not mention or explain it either, so gee I wonder why people might say there were bombs? The Bush appointed scientists at NIST did not check for explosives in their Bushler science investigation either.