Debut of the Truth Party

Originally posted by airspoon
As everyone knows, the debunkers only hit on the issues that the disinformation agents put out, like "no planes" so if we had an official body to refute those claims and put out the true claims, it would cut back on this current free reign that debunkers enjoy now. You see, the debunkers have united and their official body is the government and MSM and that's why they so easily get away with they do.

I don't know who this, "everyone" is except for perhaps wishful thinking on your part, since proponents of pretty much every one of these goofball conspiracy claims from controlled demolitions to cruise missile hit the Pentagon are being hounded left and right by people exposing their glaring flaws, but that's neither here nor there.

Do I understand you correctly that your "truth" party will invoke repression and censorship to eliminate all alternative claims that you consider unacceptable? If, say, a member in your ranks turns out to be someone who subscribes to the "lasers from outer space" claims, you'll excommunicate them?

At least you're being honest about having an agenda to get people to believe what you yourselves want to believe. Let me know how that party doctrine works for you, comrade.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


First of all, it's not my "truth party" but that's neither here nor there, as you put it. This "everyone" includes all debunkers who are short on logic, heavy on faith and blinded by ignorance. It is my belief that these "goofball" claims, such as no-planes, alien involvement or Muslims jealous of our freedoms, are either being propagated by disinfo agents or stated by people with delusional perceptions, which in turn gets propagated by disinfo agents pushing an agenda and debunkers trying to look intelligent. As of yet, I have not seen a single debunker expose any flaws in the sound evidence pushed forward and facts exposed by serious and independent researchers.

Truth is, many debunkers are working on faith that the official conspiracy theory is correct and in fact true. They then ignore sound evidence and trusted scientific theories, instead opting to work on faith that their government is telling them the truth. Then out of their apparent stupidity and ignorance, they try to shift that perception of themselves onto those that use logic and reason to form their beliefs and/or theories.

Should the party censor or repress those that disrupt the stated goals of the party? No more than the Republicans would censor or repress those who believe in socialism. No more that the Libertarians would censor or repress those that believe in Keynesian economics. No more than the Democrats would censor or repress those who believe in Austrian economics.

The goals of the party would be to get to the truth, regardless of where that truth leads us. If the truth leads us back to the official conspiracy theory, then so be it, at least we would have the truth and a logical explanation of said truth. The goal is not to put out theories, but rather to refute the theories that simply aren't true or don't add up and present the evidence without conjecture. Just the facts. Another goal would be to get a real and independent investigation, so that we all may have the truth, debunkers and truthers alike. If the investigation concludes that the OCT is correct, then we should get a logical explanation as to why and how it is correct. At least then, those debunkers lacking logic could actually go on something other than faith and trust in their profit driven government. If the investigation concludes that the OCT is incorrect, then everyone can finally have truth or whatever the investigation has uncovered, though I'm sure many debunkers will again refuse to see the very sound and reasonable evidence, instead opting for continued ignorance.

Many researchers including myself, have no vested interest in the outcome of our research. We simply want the truth and we try to remain as objective as possible. For instance, what I do, instead of focusing my attention theorizing about what did happen, I use the evidence to rule out what didn't happen, thus pointing to the official conspiracy theory as being false. Why would the government pass a false theory? Is there something that the government or someone in the government is trying to hide? To answer these questions would be to speculate, so I'll leave that to each individual to judge for themselves.

You see, a lot of debunkers would rather suppress the evidence that doesn't fit in with the official conspiracy theory. Also, they would rather interject subjective and irrational conjecture into the debate, designed to side-step logical reasoning. Of course this isn't all debunkers. My research for instance, has lead me to debunk a lot of claims that I see floating around. Debunking isn't always bad, though it most certainly is when the debunker refuses to use logic and instead parrots what s/he read on a website or magazine or heard from a media outlet or the government with the only reasoning being trust that this government, website, media outlet or magazine wouldn't lie to them. The debunker who claims s/he knows what happened and that s/he is absolutely correct in his/her conviction is just as silly as the truther who does the same. However, a truther who claims that he knows what didn't happen based on evidence and facts, is much smarter than a debunker who refuses to look at said evidence or acknowledge said facts.

The only agenda that I have as it pertains to 9/11, comrade, is to expose the facts and evidence that has been so far suppressed. Furthermore, my "agenda" is to have a proper investigation conducted in the name of justice and liberty, since this incident has cost me my country, my way of life, my Constitutional liberties, my health, my friends lives, my tax-dollars and my sense of peace, seeing how my government lied to me in order for me to kill for them. I don't want to plant any theory in anyone's head. Sure I'll pass theories, just as anyone else, though I always label them as such and usually only to present the evidence in a context suitable to understand it.

I find the official conspiracy theory just as far fetched and as silly as the no planes theory and alien involvement theory. They both rely heavily on conjecture without sound evidence and they both lack logic and reason though the official theory is usually based upon faith and trust in a government who has been caught time and time again lying to us.

What really gets me with some debunkers, usually the ones with an agenda to suppress the facts from the people, is they pick these outlandish and absurd theories, then attribute them to the entire truth movement before easily shooting them down. This is implying that the whole truth movement has just been debunked and there is no substance to their claims since this seemingly intelligent debunker just showed his superior intellect in debunking a "no-planes" theory. These kind of tactics are designed to discredit the entire movement while suppressing the facts and real evidence because the facts and real evidence is what they can not debunk. It is a way to present themselves as intellects while hiding the things they lack the ability to debate.

Please don't use anger in a response, instead use logic and reason as it would be a sight for sore eyes to see an OS believer actually use either or maybe even both, one day. I have faith that logic is somewhere in those heads of theirs, we just have to coax it out!

--airspoon





Edited because I misspelled one word.

[edit on 27-5-2010 by airspoon]

Originally posted by airspoon

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
What's the Truth Party's stand going to be on health care? Or electoral reform?

The party doesn't take a stand on either one, unless they are somehow involved with 9/11, the cover up of 9/11 or the aftermath of 9/11. It is extremely important that this party stay focused on the goal and that is to uncover the truth of 9/11. When you start to include additional planks, not only does that distract from the mission, but it also starts to lean in the left-right direction. Again this only a party to promote 9/11 truth through political muscle. It would also be a group to officially dismiss disinformation and refute claims such as "no planes" and also debunkers.

As everyone knows, the debunkers only hit on the issues that the disinformation agents put out, like "no planes" so if we had an official body to refute those claims and put out the true claims, it would cut back on this current free reign that debunkers enjoy now. You see, the debunkers have united and their official body is the government and MSM and that's why they so easily get away with they do.

--airspoon

You can't really have a national political movement without policies on other issues. You can lobby, or have a pressure group, but as soon as you start fielding candidates - which is what I understand by your plan - then voters will want to know what kind of attitudes you have to stuff like health care and so on.

Fair enough to try and stay out of the right-left axis (which I agree with you is not exactly a working model anyway) but it has a way of dragging you in if you want to actually take part in government.

Have to say though, I personally would welcome a party like the one you advocate. Only because it would encourage the Truth Movement to come up with a single cogent theory about what you think happened.

I have to say I don't share your optimism about how easy it would be to do that, or about how there is a "main confluence" of Truther ideas that will naturally form the basis of the party's grand theory. Indeed I think you might find such a party bickers and tends towards splits even more than most minor political groups.

I detest both the Left and the Right wing labeling. This is because I like so many others are neither Left or Right. I will be labeled left or right depending on the issue.

To me the Democrats and Republicans being labeled Left or Right is the stupidest thing anyone could have ever come up with.

Most party members as individuals will tell you they are not Left or Right - so why should their Party be considered so?

It's Stupid!

Now this being said, I believe a party for the Truth Movement sounds like a good idea.. but isn't this exactly what the Democrats and Republicans are supposed to be in the first place?

Aren't all Americans supposed to be for Truth Justice and The American Way? The Republic for which our flag stands and Constitutionalism ?

We don't need a new movement we do need a Third Party. If these people are not willing to be this new third party then what good are they?

Unless we have that third party that stands up for Truth and against lying corrupt Government, they can holler till the cows come home it's not going to make a dent in the problems we face daily in this once great country.

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

First of all, it's not my "truth party" but that's neither here nor there, as you put it. This "everyone" includes all debunkers who are short on logic, heavy on faith and blinded by ignorance. It is my belief that these "goofball" claims, such as no-planes, alien involvement or Muslims jealous of our freedoms, are either being propagated by disinfo agents or stated by people with delusional perceptions, which in turn gets propagated by disinfo agents pushing an agenda and debunkers trying to look intelligent.

Now there, we are in full agreement. It's clear by the sheer variety of explanations the conspiracy movement is putting out to explain what the "blatantly a conspiracy" actually is that they're not basing it upon any objective review of the facts, but upon the particular paranoid outlook on life they themselves hold, like a Rorschach test. This person thinks it's the gov't, that person thinks it's the work of the Jews, and yet another person thinks it's the work of the Masons. Are we in agreement that someone looking at the events of 9/11 and declaring it's all the work of a secret cult of Satan worshipping numerologists is actually bringing his/her own angsts into the picture?

The difference is that you seem to think this mindset does not include you, while I maintain that it most certainly does.

As of yet, I have not seen a single debunker expose any flaws in the sound evidence pushed forward and facts exposed by serious and independent researchers.

Are you saying you've never seen anyone refute your conspiracy claims successfully, or are you saying that you've never seen anyone attempt to refute your conspiracy claims *at all?* The latter is an absurd exaggeration in the extreme, while the former is based more upon your reliance of circular logic than the presentaion of information. See below.

Truth is, many debunkers are working on faith that the official conspiracy theory is correct and in fact true. They then ignore sound evidence and trusted scientific theories, instead opting to work on faith that their government is telling them the truth. Then out of their apparent stupidity and ignorance, they try to shift that perception of themselves onto those that use logic and reason to form their beliefs and/or theories.

The glaring problem in that assessment is that there ISN'T any sound evidence nor trusted scientific theories that support any of the conspiracy claims. They're supported entirely upon bad logic, manipulated facts to make ti appear the way they want it to appear, and outright falsehoods. Case in point- Dr. Judy Wood uses "sound logic and trusted scientific theories" to show how energy beams from outer space destroyed the towers. the fact of the matter is, she's deriving the end result that she wished to obtain first, and then manipulating the research specifically to support that end result. Is it research proven by scientific theory? absolutely. Does it arrive at an irrefutable conclusion? You know the answer to that and so do I.

The goals of the party would be to get to the truth, regardless of where that truth leads us. If the truth leads us back to the official conspiracy theory, then so be it, at least we would have the truth and a logical explanation of said truth. The goal is not to put out theories, but rather to refute the theories that simply aren't true or don't add up and present the evidence without conjecture. Just the facts.

Interesting. So when a particular truth you espouse is shown by others to be irrefutably incorrect, will you therefore abandon it as being disproven, or will you continue to employ it becuase it's expedient to your agenda? See below.

Another goal would be to get a real and independent investigation, so that we all may have the truth, debunkers and truthers alike. If the investigation concludes that the OCT is correct, then we should get a logical explanation as to why and how it is correct.

The problem for you here is that conspiracy claims rely heavily upon circular logic, in that they attempt to use the conspiracy to prove itself. If someone consistantly uses the excuse that secret agents are manipulating the media, planting manufactured evidence, and acting as false witnesses and disinformation agents, to the point where it becomes the central point of logic to their argument, then they're certainly going to use the excuse that secret agents are planting all the evidence that shows their pet conspriacy theories are false. No investigation of any kind will ever be able to sway such a mindset, any more than a a review of evidence and a sound discussion of evolution will ever sway the pope.

But hey, don't take my word for it. Go form your truth party and see how many no planers, nukes in the basement theorists, etc you'll attract the same way moths are attracted to a flame. You can't be so naive as to think it won't happen.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


I didn't say it would be easy, though it certainly is possible and maybe even easier than most think. I can say this however, until the truth movement unites, we are going to stay marginalized and disinfo will continue to spew out unabated. Unless we can unite under a single banner, justice and the truth will never be realized.

--airspoon

Originally posted by airspoon
I didn't say it would be easy, though it certainly is possible and maybe even easier than most think. I can say this however, until the truth movement unites, we are going to stay marginalized and disinfo will continue to spew out unabated. Unless we can unite under a single banner, justice and the truth will never be realized.

--airspoon

Noone is saying that you can't unite. My point is that you're going to unite in ways you really aren't anticipating and most probably don't want. Witness the post of one of your fellow truthers below:

"yea, I agree - debunking a slam dunk is sort of smells of Foreign influence. namely ISREAL the one that will pay for 911. and when
the truth comes out - and it will - I can see America withdrawing all support and granting huge arms deals to the ARABs. then maybe just maybe Isreal will cease to be a destablizing element in the world today. and after that has ran it's coarse - then we might want to talk about U.S.S. Liberty - and middle east peace. if not then - we will just have to put this idea of a Isreali state on the back burner for another 1,000 years. "

So yes, it will be easy for you people to unite under a single banner. You proved that in spades back in 1938.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


"You people" as in "truthers" or "You people" as in Jews? I fail to see how a united national political or even international political movement for that matter, based on 9/11 truth, has anything to do with huge arms deals to the Arabs. We already have huge arms deals with the Arabs.

The goal of this political party, would be to get to the truth of 9/11, whatever that truth may be, through a proper investigation and then to seek justice for those responsible, whether it be Bin Laden, Halliburton, Zionism or Mickey Mouse. Not unlike the way that the Tea Party's initial failed goal was to end corruption on both sides of the isle in the US government. If people have these wild or not so wild ideas about what happened, then that has no bearing on the influence or goals of any "truth party". Regardless of anyone's belief about the events of that day, "truthers" will be united in only their beliefs about what didn't happen, the only thing we have in common. Common goals are ascertained by uniting around common beliefs, therefore, we stick to only the beliefs that we have in common.

People unite around common beliefs all of the time, even if their beliefs differ in other aspects. Take for instance homosexuals. Homosexuals have many differences within their ranks. Some may be either conservative, liberal, statist or libertarian while others may be centrist. Regardless of these differences, many of them unite under the common goal of ending discrimination against homosexuals and then use their numbers on that issue alone for political muscle. It's called special interest and it works.

Could they have gotten anywhere if they didn't unite around their one common belief? If they said, "well we have so many differences, it's no use to try and unite around what we do have in common". Many even have differences in what they believe is discrimination, yet they only focus on what they have in common, for the most part.

--airspoon




[edit on 31-5-2010 by airspoon]

Originally posted by airspoon
The goal of this political party, would be to get to the truth of 9/11, whatever that truth may be, through a proper investigation and then to seek justice for those responsible, whether it be Bin Laden, Halliburton, Zionism or Mickey Mouse.

From the very actions of the conspiracy theorists, I can see this is NOT what your goal truly is. the goal is to prove whatever individual conspiracy angst it is that you subscribe to individially, and you will accept no findings that do not conform to what you want to believe.

This person insists the attack was the result of a conspiracy by the Jewish World Order, and when we show evidence supporting the claim that it was an Al Qaida plot, they brush it off saying"the Jewish World Order planted disinformation". That person insists that Bush staged the attack, and when we show evidence that refutes this they brush it off saying "Bush's secret agents planted disinformation". And so on and so forth. I don't have to tell you that when people actually insist that no planes hit the WTC and every video footage in existance is faked, that personal political agendas are making up a big part of all this, do I?

Originally posted by airspoon Regardless of these differences, many of them unite under the common goal of ending discrimination against homosexuals and then use their numbers on that issue alone for political muscle. It's called special interest and it works.

[edit on 31-5-2010 by airspoon]

That's kind of my point though. There's no "Homosexual Party" because that would force polarisation on issues such as health care, government debt and foreign policy. That's just the polarisation you'll see in the Truth Movement if this "Party" comes into being.

reply to post by hawkiye


That's why high turnover is necessary: absolute power does in fact corrupt absolutely. It's up to us to make sure no one person or group holds it for too long. This requires some degree of organization, no matter how distrustful of large groups some of us may be.

People are getting the wrong idea. "Truth Party" as in "Tea Party" not as "Republican Party", save for one small difference, organization like the Republican aor Democratic Parties. You don't have to address every issue, because unlike the Repubs or Dems, our power wouldn't come from fielding candidates, rather it would come from numbers organized. Even normal political parties don't take sides with every issue. Look at the Libertarian Party with both immigration and abortion.

So, a party such as the "Truth Party" has never been created before, but that doesn't mean that it isn't possible, especially when it would not be from scratch. Just use the methods and purpose of the original Tea Party (before it was hijacked by the neo-cons), with the organization of the two dominant parties. Instead of focusing on theories or what could have happened, we focus on what we know didn't happen, the OS. We also focus on a real and independent investigation.

This would be good for several reasons, the first being that disinformation could be met with a unified voice and rejected. For instance, lets say that Popular Mechanics does another hit piece on the Truth movement by what they claim as another debunking article. If we had a unified voice, we could oppose the hit piece by pointing out that Popular Mechanics only focuses on the wild and outlandish theories instead of the real damning evidence. We could point out that the majority of "truthers" don't believe in the "no-plane" theories or the "death-ray" theories. We could also dispel the myths that surround the "truther" quasi-movement.

(I call it a quasi-movement because it's not a movement at all, rather it's a bunch of people being independently upset over a trajidy and not organizing to do anything about it.)

The second reason to organize, is that there is obviously strength in numbers. Having a large voting bloc behind an issue, similar to the environmentalists, could only be a good thing, especially when compared to what we now have, a few kids holding signs in front of a military recruitment office.

The third reason for organizing would be for visibility. I don't don't know how many times that I've heard, "well, so what? There's nothing we can do about it anyway". If we show the people that there is something we can do about it, that this isn't just some loose gaggle of "conspiracy theorists", then people would be more apt to jump on board.

During the Civil War (what I like to call the Confederate War for Independence, since it wasn't a civil war at all), Robert E. Lee lead a smaller, less equipped and less trained army into battle. He knew that he couldn't win the war but he went into battle knowing that if he could prove to the French and British that he was serious and not just some small loosely organized rebellion, that they would enter the war on his behalf, thereby allowing the South to accomplish their goal of succession. This was the same strategy of our founding fathers as well during the Revolution, to show the French that they weren't some loosely held together rebellion. Both the Confederate States of America and the American colonies pulled together to organize against insurmountable odds, in an effort to show others that they were serious and more than just a group of pissed off people.

Now, we can either bitch about what happened on 9/11 and whine all we want, but until we take action in an effective manner, we really have no legs to stand on with that whining and bitching. Figuring out the truth will do no good unless we have a way to present that truth. Finding evidence, or lack thereof, will do no good until we have a way to do something about that evidence. Right now, if we found a document or video-tape all but proving an inside job, for instance, it would do us absolutely no good as that video or document would go up on a few websites and message boards with be buzzing with bitches and gripes about how "unfair" it is that nothing is being done. Nothing is being done because we are doing nothing about it. We can't waite until someone else does it for us, we have to to do it ourselves and that is just like everything else in life. However, if a damning piece of evidence comes out and we have an organized political group, then we could use our numbers and visibility to get that evidence out there. Think about that for a minute.... Remember the nano-thermite? Most Americans don't even know that nano-thermite traces were found the dust layers of Manhattan and Brooklyn. Even some truthers don't don't know about the nano-thermite particulates. This is in spite of the fact that it was a published and excepted scientific fact.

Lets quit waiting for someone else to do something about the injustice of 9/11 and then bitching and moaning when there isn't anyone else. We all have a steak in this fight so it is just as much our job, as it is the Justice Department or anyone else.

--airspoon