• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Propaganda - The 9/11 truth variety (commentary)

This is essentially an admission that this subforum lives of the actions of the weirder parts of the "truth movement".

You appear to be missing the point. Look up at the name of this subforum. It's called "Conspiracy Theories". What that means, in popular usage, is wild speculation about overarching world conspiracies controling many large events. For example, Wiki says:
The term "conspiracy theory" is used by mainstream scholars and in popular culture to identify a type of folklore similar to an urban legend, especially an explanatory narrative which is constructed with particular methodological flaws.
Conspiracy theories are all about unfounded speculation. If someone has legitimate questions about an event, it is not a conspiracy theory and does not belong in this section. If you want disussions about the politics involved in 9/11, or other events, go to the Politics subforum. If you want to talk about real science involved with events, go to the Science subforum. If you want to talk about other aspects of events, go to the relevant section. This particular section exists solely for the purpose of discussing the various wild ideas and speculation that usually have no foundation in reality.

We don't need to "admit" that this subforum focusses on the weirder claims, that's the whole point of it.
 
Hufschmid is not on the reputable list. Read my post again and try to understand it. Your accusation is impertinent.

[snip]

I must apologize. I did not misread your post, as I was actually referring to Hopsicker, but I can't find anything to indicate that he's an out-and-out Holocaust denier. Maybe I got him confused with Hufschmid, or just erroneously assumed he was one because he attends conferences hosted by notorious Holocaust deniers.

Now a new question emerges: Is he so stupid as to not realize what David Irving represents, or does he just not care about being associated with evil creeps? Either way it does not speak good of his character.
 
I realize the "popularity" of the 9/11 conspiracies, but there are loads of other conspiracies out there that could probably do with even a portion of the treatment 9/11 truthers have gotten as far as disseminating facts.

I agree. Personally, most of the other CTs do not interest me. It was 9/11 truth that drew me here.

Yeah, but how is "you're stupid" or "you're insane" debunking? I understand the frustration, but most of these conspiracy theory talking points are easily outsmarted, and the other ones could do with a little more good faith in pointing out errors to convince more people to at least stop and think about the possibility that all their assumptions aren't written in stone.

"youre stupid" and other attacks are not debunking. On that we can all agree. They (the insults) are the result of repeatedly doing exactly as you have suggested, pointing out there errors in logic, the errors in fact, and doing so hundreds of times to little or no avail, or worse...not a good thing to do...for sure, but a very human thing to do.

Just making sure I don't break protocol, sir. :)

Good...I wouldn't want to have to send NWO Kitty after you...

I dunno, I usually tend to hear "calling it as they see it" as a catchall excuse used for belligerence. I'm not making any direct accusations, but I am saying I've heard that before and have even been known to use it myself in the past. There's a difference between calling a spade a spade and calling a spade a crazy nutbag. ;)

No doubt it is an "explanation" that is used to deflect criticism of what amounts to insults and what not. Some people leave to cope, others let out the occasional "nutbag" out when dealing with the annoying shovels.


Hey, how about people with brain damage? Can't reason with them, right? Ooh, or how about "you can't ever reason with a <conservative or liberal>." Yeah, this is awesome! You can pretty much write off anybody by using blanket statements!

That is true as well. Of course there are exceptions to every rule, but I think the lack of reasonableness in the 9/11 truth movement is pervasive enough to use such a label often.

I know what you're saying, and I am maintaining that I disagree. In fact, I think it is seriously hurting the credibility of this subforum. Exhibit A-- I'm not even a CT-ist and I found the two posts I criticized there to be so horribly flawed and lacking of intellectual honesty that I could almost see how a misguided rebellious kid would latch on to that as possible affirmation of conspiracy. Then it's just a matter of having older snake oil salesmen deliver to them the conspiracy pitch and BAM, they're the next member of the 'movement'.

I see where you are coming from. I also feel bad sometimes that I will use the rod instead of the carrot, but I have never had ANY success using the carrot with the truthers...If that means we lose some truthers to the elder snake oil salesmen, but gain a few fence sitters in exchange, I am ok with it, as most of the truthers, as others have rightfully said, are beyond saving from their beliefs on the issue.

I realize that the CT-apologizer in question in my example is a pretty frustrating and determined advocate of all-around conspiricizing, but that doesn't change my opinion at all. Let him dig his own hole. Sometimes the best rhetorical tool is to let an 'opponent' that you are convinces has no basis in fact to dig their own hole.

I have often used this approach. Often with Lyte Trip, I will simply let him go on and on (not like I have much choice) knowing the more he speaks, the more he says, the more fence sitters we win over.

In cases of others who post here who may be conspiracists or on the fence, they might have some pretty decent reasoning and critical thinking skills, at which point the approach can be more socratic and still be constructive.

Critical thinking is something you achieve and then rest on it. If it isn't exercised on a regular basis and worked out often, then it atrophies from lack of use. My impression is: there are a lot of posts that signify to me that a lot of people have used some critical thinking, have felt justified, and then rested on it and are showing signs of atrophy.

Yes I agree. I think I myself from time to time will exhibit such. That is why I always try to educate myself both on the facts, and on the arguments provided by the truth movement. In addition to trying to hone my critical thinking skills, I try to self-reflect.

TAM:)
 
Well, in the spirit of full disclosure, I'm naturally a heavy polemicist. I'm admittedly engaging in a bit of hyperbole (though not necessarily baseless). :)
 
What an evasive crap. Why are your actions dependent on what snake oil sellers do?

Why is the forum search full of Loose Change, Alex Jones, Rob Balsamo, Eric Hufschmid, James Fetzer, Richard Gage etc. pp. and has problems to find something on Ray McGovern, the Jersey Girls, Sibel Edmonds, Daniel Hopsicker, Dave Emory, Nafeez Ahmeed, Peter Dale Scott, Paul Thompson, Sander Hicks or Bob Bowman that is not forced into discussion by me or some other "dissidents"?

I tell you why. You are a bunch of frightened cowards. Shame on you.

Adding to relpy #40 what makes someone like Bob Bowman more legitimate than people like Alex Jones, Rob Balsamo, Eric Hufschmid, James Fetzer etc? Is it because he dosn't go around threatening people, or saying the Jews run the world or shouting from a bullhorn on street corners? While he might not do these things he's not that much different from these people.
 
Bowman, being ex-military (IIRC) and current wanna be politician, adds a false air of "legitimacy" to the arguments that the turhters are desperate for...other than that, from what I have read of his thoughts on the issues, he is no better than the others you have mentioned.

TAM:)
 
Bowman, being ex-military (IIRC) and current wanna be politician, adds a false air of "legitimacy" to the arguments that the turhters are desperate for...other than that, from what I have read of his thoughts on the issues, he is no better than the others you have mentioned.

TAM:)

Like I said before, he's just not as over the top as some of the others. However when you scratch the surface he's not that different.
 
Here is a little propaganda about the truth movement...from "BostonNow":

http://www.bostonnow.com/blogs/alie..._disclosure_of_documents_and_related_evidence

TAM:)

There's the school of thought in the US that colleges are not what they used to be. Reading this guys drivel I almost have to agree.

Honestly, it still puzzles me when people like this talk about how we need to ask serious questions about what's going on. Yet it he seems to have bought into such an error filed "documentary" like Loose Change without question.

I'm wondering what civilized empress thinks about my comments regarding the great Bob Bowman.
 
What an evasive crap. Why are your actions dependent on what snake oil sellers do?

Why is the forum search full of Loose Change, Alex Jones, Rob Balsamo, Eric Hufschmid, James Fetzer, Richard Gage etc. pp. and has problems to find something on Ray McGovern, the Jersey Girls, Sibel Edmonds, Daniel Hopsicker, Dave Emory, Nafeez Ahmeed, Peter Dale Scott, Paul Thompson, Sander Hicks or Bob Bowman that is not forced into discussion by me or some other "dissidents"?

I tell you why. You are a bunch of frightened cowards. Shame on you.

You can tell a lot about a person by the people they associate with. As I pointed out to you already Bob Bowman co-signed a letter with Rob Balsamo. Now he's doing interviews with Kevin Barrett. I don't know if he you know who he is but he makes Rob Balsamo look rather tame.

< http://www.911blogger.com/node/12957 >
 
What an evasive crap. Why are your actions dependent on what snake oil sellers do?

Why is the forum search full of Loose Change, Alex Jones, Rob Balsamo, Eric Hufschmid, James Fetzer, Richard Gage etc. pp. and has problems to find something on Ray McGovern, the Jersey Girls, Sibel Edmonds, Daniel Hopsicker, Dave Emory, Nafeez Ahmeed, Peter Dale Scott, Paul Thompson, Sander Hicks or Bob Bowman that is not forced into discussion by me or some other "dissidents"?

I tell you why. You are a bunch of frightened cowards. Shame on you.
You did not bother to search. Otherwise you'd know we think the Jersey Girls are nuts too.:) From what I learned I would lump them into Loose Change group now.
 
Last edited:
Either Mr. Bowman did not bother to look into he was talking to or he did and he had no problem with it. If it's the former it means he's lazy and/or does not care as long as he gets attention. If it's the latter that's even more disturbing.
 
Yes yes, people who stand behind science are cowards for not going along with con artists and frauds so as to support Child's political beliefs. Sometimes I don't know which is worse. Thw twoofers, or political radicals like her.
 
Yes yes, people who stand behind science are cowards for not going along with con artists and frauds so as to support Child's political beliefs. Sometimes I don't know which is worse. Thw twoofers, or political radicals like her.
You don't have to choose. Just say they are equally worse.
 

Back
Top Bottom