>>> Please stop the CT-Troooth-Movement!

[Oliver]

What in god greens earth do hardcore-CT ísts believe to find...?

The explosive-trash is a dead end - even if it was a CD. Some pics, vids, seismos, sounds do not
change the fact, that these are no evidence to change anything. Even if it WAS a controlled
demolition!

But they do not care about this reality!!!

What do Conspiracy Theorists think? That some judge says: "Jowenko is a CD-Expert? And he
believes building 7 it was a CD? --- Okay, thats enough, lets impeach Bush and the other tyrants!"

It´s so stupid to even think about this crap. Also the pentagon or shanksville. The only chance to
find anything, would be the political/involvement side.

And this side looks pretty much like the official story.

We should ask logical questions to the CT ´ists to get their heads straight - instead of neverending
discussions until the moon turns into cheese...

They don´t believe you - but they believe in theirself, if you ask them the right questions and they seriously must
start to think about it... ...for their own...

Many discussions in here makes it even worse, because most of them believe that you are an opponent,
not someone who really want to tell the truth to them. In psychological view, we´re all wrong with
the way we try to change something.

Your serious replies, please...

...Even if i know that some in here don´t care about a change - for example: The ones that start to make jokes,
try to fade away from the issue, don´t discuss the problem or start new threads about the CT-Crap that is discussed
million times before...

You may see them in this particular thread here, too...

 

[Kryptos]

I got turned onto what the truthers were saying for a few reasons:

1. About a year ago, on Wikipedia, I started editing the 9/11 articles, removing vandalism. In the past year, the number of truthers coming on Wikipedia, inserting their garbage into the 9/11 articles, has increased. And, I care about editing on Wikipedia, because their articles turn up so highly in Google searches.

Rather than reverting and deleting everything, articles such as 9/11 conspiracy theories describe some of the popular theories, with rebuttals and debunking. PBS recently commented about Wikipedia's 9/11 articles,

"Though I’ve had plenty of reasons to shun Wikipedia and its attempts at a neutral point of view, I’ll give it credit for this entry, which covers a vast array of details about the attacks. There are simple timelines, photos, and the entry even includes some of the conspiracy theories in a relatively balanced way." - http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/09/online_remembrancesreliving_91.html

The tide has been turning recently on Wikipedia, with many of the articles relating to Alex Jones, Loose Change, etc. being successfully deleted (by community consensus). I think this success has been aided by the screwloosechange efforts.

2. It annoyed me to run into the troofers at GZ one Saturday during this past summer.

3. http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll - Third of Americans suspect 9-11 government conspiracy

4. I recently typed "9/11" into google. Four of the top 10 sites were conspiracy sites, with Michael Moore's site a fifth, and Wikipedia a sixth (among the 10). People are getting information from somewhere. I really hope some of the debunking sites can displace the conspiracy sites.

5. What the polls and attitudes in places such as Pakistan show.

A few examples:

* http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/22/news/pew2.php
* http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=253
* http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002/02/27/usat-poll.htm


Being confrontational and adopting the antics of the troofers is not the answer, but rather informed dialogue (having done one's homework) is more effective? Sure, the troofers don't care what we have to say and just dismiss us as the "official story", "shills", "part of the conspiracy". But, being absent from the dialogue isn't helpful either. (and too bad, so many eligible voters don't show up at the polls either to have their say)

Some sensible voices and sources of information regarding 9/11 are needed to help inform those on the fences, who are curious and have "questions" about 9/11.

-Kate

 

[Oliver]

@Kate:

I don´t talk about being absent. I talk about questioning them logical questions - to start a process of thinking in
their minds.

Once they have started to think for their own, they also start to understand.

Most of them are stucked deep in their theories and they have people around them, who also support these
false theories. I´m talking about psychological way to turn their thougts back to "normal-mode", wich is
a process that they have to make for their own.

I´m no expert in psychology, but i know that these tactics are real and that they work. Every expert
uses them to manage stucked positions in peoples minds - to show them solutions for their problems
- solutions, they did´nt see for their own before.

Sorry for my bad english, Kate - i would be much better to explain it in german.

- Oliver

 

[T.A.M.]

Oliver, sounds like you are calling for an "Intervention". Sort of like when family members pull their relatives off the streets to "straighten" them up.

Not sure how I feel about this. Maybe I will post later with my thoughts.

TAM

 

[Oliver]

Oliver, sounds like you are calling for an "Intervention". Sort of like when family members pull their relatives off the streets to "straighten" them up.

Not sure how I feel about this. Maybe I will post later with my thoughts.

TAM

Intervention is the false word. We should ask serious, logical questions to make them think for theirselfes. All
they do is making new, stupid CT´s or telling the Crap they hear. They don´t really think in a neutral way, but
such logical questions would start a process like this, because they have to answer these questions in their
mind.

Maybe some lie to theirself by answering the questions or they deny to think about.

But if we ask different, logical questions - they can´t ignore them because it´s something you can´t get
out of the mind until you thought about it.

And this would be the start for rethinking the theories.

 

[Kryptos]

psychological way to
turn their thougts back to "normal-mode"

Hmm... Being confrontational, with tit-for-tat, isn't the answer, but how to engage them in logical discussion?

I've come across the name, "Patrick Leman" in searching about social psychology of conspiracy theories.

From an old JREF thread, http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=3106

"...why some individuals are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories than others. It is argued that circular relationship between (trust or lack of it in) evidence and inference-making leads, over time, to more enduring beliefs about conspiracy theories..." - part of an e-mail reply from Dr. Leman.

I'm not sure who else is involved with this kind of research.

As far as I'm concerned, I think there will always be some people who we just can't convince. I'm more interested in the "fence sitters", who search google and see these four conspiracy sites among the top ten, and maybe don't realize what they are.

-Kate

 

[Oliver]

Hmm... Being confrontational, with tit-for-tat, isn't the answer, but how to engage them in logical discussion?

I've come across the name, "Patrick Leman" in searching about social psychology of conspiracy theories.

From an old JREF thread, http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=3106


I'm not sure who else is involved with this kind of research.

As far as I'm concerned, I think there will always be some people who we just can't convince. I'm more interested in the "fence sitters", who search google and see these four conspiracy sites among the top ten, and maybe don't realize what they are.

-Kate

It´s not that complex, Kate. It´s nothing but answering a question with another question, wich proofs the opposite
of the first question. I have no example for it right now, but maybe we have a psychologist "on board"?

I´ve met one in another JREF-Topic. I could ask to join the discussion in here. He or they should know examples
for counterquestioning...

-Oliver

 

[Oliver]

It´s a bad Example because it´s about children, but what i mean, works nearly the same way:

"Children yearn for information. In most cases the adult will give them the information they want but there are other ways. In
this material there are examples of how an adult interrupts a dialogue without having given an answer, asks a counter question, attempts to further the mutual problematization among the children by remaining silent, gives information, recounts personal experiences and clarifies the child's question.

Children use questions which indicate a desire for reflection as well as knowledge. To these questions the adult responds with counter-
questions, by comparing and searching for knowledge and by offering his or her own knowledge and experience."

 

[CurtC]

Oliver, were you aware that the board's software will automatically wrap your lines at the appropriate places? You don't have to put line breaks in yourself - just enter you info without line breaks, except to put two line breaks in-between your paragraphs, and it will be easier reading for everyone.

 

[Oliver]

Oliver, were you aware that the board's software will automatically wrap your lines at the appropriate places? You don't have to put line breaks in yourself - just enter you info without line breaks, except to put two line breaks in-between your paragraphs, and it will be easier reading for everyone.

Sorry, Curt - i´ve learned to type this way on computer-screens in school. / willing to change this behavior of mine... :">

 

[CurtC]

It's not a big deal, but it seemed like a lot of trouble for you to type that way, resulting in a post that is slightly less convenient to read for us, than if you just had let the board wrap the lines for you.

I see you've edited your previous posts, but you seem to have deleted only every other line break, causing me to see a long line - short line - long line - short line kind of thing, which is way harder to read than how you had been doing it.

 

[Oliver]

It's not a big deal, but it seemed like a lot of trouble for you to type that way, resulting in a post that is slightly less convenient to read for us, than if you just had let the board wrap the lines for you.

I see you've edited your previous posts, but you seem to have deleted only every other line break, causing me to see a long line - short line - long line - short line kind of thing, which is way harder to read than how you had been doing it.

You are a real sceptic, Curt - You and me belong in here...
I will change my style of typing in the future - especially because everyone in here posts that way and even that i run a very high screen resolution what makes it harder to read these very long sentences.

 

[Bell]

You are a real sceptic, Curt - You and me belong in here...
I will change my style of typing in the future - especially because everyone in here posts that way and even that i run a very high screen resolution what makes it harder to read these very long sentences.

Oliver, you can resize your window

 

[Oliver]

Oliver, you can resize your window

In most cases i have 10 to 20 Tabs open to switch between them, but it´s nice to see that you have any opinion to the issue of the thread.

 

[Peephole]

The tide has been turning recently on Wikipedia, with many of the articles relating to Alex Jones, Loose Change, etc. being successfully deleted (by community consensus). I think this success has been aided by the screwloosechange efforts.

Twenty-one articles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GabrielF/911TMCruft

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Kate Debunker asked a reasonable question

Hmm... Being confrontational, with tit-for-tat, isn't the answer, but how to engage [9/11 TruthSeekers] in logical discussion?

Say what you like, it is NIST which has violated the scientific method by ignoring so much relevant data. It is wholly unscientific to assert, without foundation, that "global collapse ensued". RMackey, and others, have asserted that "global collapse is obvious, inevitable". This is not a logical discussion, it is a naked assertion. It is not scientific to declare as "obvious" something unprecendented. Especially when doing so appears to violate fundamental laws of physics (in this case, the official story appears to violate conservation of energy).

Here's a suggestion. Why don't you, or someone, publish a paper which logically explains the observations which occur after NIST truncates their timeline? Beginning with collapse intitiation, and including the pryoclastic flows, the molten metal, the chemical analyses that have been done. Logically discuss the energy requirements. Logically discuss the eyewitness reports. Logically explain WTC7, and do not ignore collapse times and symmetry.

Here' another suggestion. Why don't you, or someone, debate me on television, as described in the other thread?

 

[Z]

Here's another question: Why don't you face reality and admit that every point you've spouted HAS been explained, tit for tat?

1: No pyroclastic flows. Until you learn what the word 'pyroclastic' means, you should really stop using it.
2: Molten metal. Completely explained.
3: Chemical analyses: Fully in accordance with building materials used.
4: Energy requirements: Completely explained.
5: Eyewitness reports: Irrelevant and faulty. "Observer error" is a very common problem in disasters.
6: WTC7: Hit by falling debris, caught fire, fell slanting to one side (no symmetry). Collapse times normal on all three buildings.

It's been done. Again, and again, and again.

 

[WildCat]

Beginning with collapse intitiation, and including the pryoclastic flows, the molten metal, the chemical analyses that have been done.

Thank you for posting the pyroclastic (I spelled it right for you, try to learn it) flow thing. I get a good laugh every time I see it, really I can't stop snickering!

You have no idea what a pyroclastic flow is, do you?

 

[Oliver]

PLEASE ANSWER THIS, TruthSeeker1234!

What in god greens earth do hardcore-CT ísts believe to find...?

The explosive-trash is a dead end - even if it was a CD!!!.
Some pics, vids, seismos, sounds do not change the fact, that
these are no evidence to change anything.

Even if!...
...it was a controlled demolition!


SO WHAT?

 

[Oliver]

You are wasting time, TS1234!

...and for what reason?????