911 diversionary tactics

I was redirected to some pretty fallacy heavy BS from another thread and I thought it would be the perfect way to illustrate how "fight fire with fire" propaganda is being used against the truth movement.

by John Ray

...Yet, in just under four years, the 9/11 “truth movement” has ground to a halt. Apart from the fundamental incoherence of their theories, the downfall of the 9/11 denier juggernaut was good old-fashioned skepticism at its finest, the kind that conjures visions of James Randi challenging psychics and faith healers on their home turfs and winning. Skeptics are better at their jobs than they think, and its important to give credit where credit is due.

Staking their fortunes almost solely on Internet-based content may have been the 9/11 deniers’ biggest mistake. What seems like a perfect place for pseudoscience — the Internet is un-edited, without fact-checkers or minimum publishing standards of any kind — also became a perfect place for a rapid-response system of blogs and forums to fight back. Drawing on the freely available technical information from the NIST, FEMA, and academic journals which most colleges let their students access for free, skeptical sites like ScrewLooseChange.blogspot.com and debunking911.com are able to defuse 9/11 denier claims as they arise...

I have brought this up before, and of course there was no "debunking" then, either.

"Just because one persons theory is FALSE does not by any means mean that another is automatically true".

A correlative conjunction is a relationship between two statements where one must be false and the other true. In formal logic this is known as the exclusive or relationship; traditionally, terms between which this relationship exists have been called contradictories.
[edit] Examples

In the following example, statement b explicitly negates statement a:

1. Fido is a dog.
2. Fido is not a dog.

Statements can also be mutually exclusive, without explicitly negating each other as in the following example:

1. Object one is larger than object two.
2. Object one is smaller or the same size as object two.

In other words "conspiracy theory A" is false, therefore "Conspiracy theory B is true." Or specifically in this case:

able to defuse 9/11 denier claims as they arise...

DOES NOT MEAN
that the OS is true. Not by a longshot.

I've said this before and it bears saying again- if these conspiracy theorists disagree with the 9/11 commission's account, then it becomes their responsibility to provide an alternative explanation that better fits the facts. So far, the conspiracy theorists have given us nothing but a never ending array of the most crackpot sounding, paranoid accusations I've ever heard, and which only creates more questions than it does answers.

How the heck did these invisible controlled demolitions get in the building without anyone noticing? How is it that the nuke in the basement didn't turn all of Manhatten into bubbling glass? How is it that the energy weapon in outer space didn't vaporise all the people as well as the building? How did the gov't get every footage from CNN to tourist cameras to have a faek image of the aircraft hitting the WTC? Why in the name of Underdog would the conspirators [censored] around with flinging cruise missiles at the Pentagon, plant fake aircraft wreckage, and get all those disinformation agents to say it was an aircraft they saw when they already had two or more disposable passenger jets they could have used for free? Good grief, at what point do the UFOs start coming into the picture?

The only thing the conspiracy theorists have actually proved with their accusations is that the 9/11 commissions account is the worst explanation in the world...except for every other explanation.

reply to post by jprophet420


911 diversionary tactics??? See the post previous to this!

I think you proved your point of the thread with comments like above.

Good Thread S&F

[edit on 23-5-2010 by theability]

"if these conspiracy theorists disagree with the 9/11 commission's account, then it becomes their responsibility to provide an alternative explanation that better fits the facts."

Gee, how mighty big of you to offer up such a challenge after an 8 1/2 year professional coverup.

By the way, if you want to transport me back to the afternoon of 9/11/01, give me access to all the evidence and provide me with a $15 million investigation budget, I will gladly take you up on your offer and provide you with a much better explanation. Until you are capable of doing that, you are free to continue offering empty and nonsensical challenges.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
"if these conspiracy theorists disagree with the 9/11 commission's account, then it becomes their responsibility to provide an alternative explanation that better fits the facts."

Gee, how mighty big of you to offer up such a challenge after an 8 1/2 year professional coverup.

By the way, if you want to transport me back to the afternoon of 9/11/01, give me access to all the evidence and provide me with a $15 million investigation budget, I will gladly take you up on your offer and provide you with a much better explanation. Until you are capable of doing that, you are free to continue offering empty and nonsensical challenges.

You can deny that the burden of proof is on your shoulders all you want. It still won't get you a new investigation

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal


By the way, if you want to transport me back to the afternoon of 9/11/01, give me access to all the evidence and provide me with a $15 million investigation budget, I will gladly take you up on your offer and provide you with a much better explanation. Until you are capable of doing that, you are free to continue offering empty and nonsensical challenges.

It's sad that the only way one will know the truth is with a time machine.

Originally posted by jprophet420
DOES NOT MEAN
that the OS is true. Not by a longshot.

Absolutely true. But since the "OS" is a shorthand construct invented by the Truth Movement, you won't find many debunkers who are bothered about whether it's "true" or not.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
you are free to continue offering empty and nonsensical challenges.

It's an empty and nonsensical challenge for you even to put forward a tentative theory of what you think happened?

I think that says something about the quality of your thinking. And your faith in your own ideas.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I've said this before and it bears saying again- if these conspiracy theorists disagree with the 9/11 commission's account, then it becomes their responsibility to provide an alternative explanation that better fits the facts. So far, the conspiracy theorists have given us nothing but a never ending array of the most crackpot sounding, paranoid accusations I've ever heard, and which only creates more questions than it does answers.

How the heck did these invisible controlled demolitions get in the building without anyone noticing? How is it that the nuke in the basement didn't turn all of Manhatten into bubbling glass? How is it that the energy weapon in outer space didn't vaporise all the people as well as the building? How did the gov't get every footage from CNN to tourist cameras to have a faek image of the aircraft hitting the WTC? Why in the name of Underdog would the conspirators [censored] around with flinging cruise missiles at the Pentagon, plant fake aircraft wreckage, and get all those disinformation agents to say it was an aircraft they saw when they already had two or more disposable passenger jets they could have used for free? Good grief, at what point do the UFOs start coming into the picture?

The only thing the conspiracy theorists have actually proved with their accusations is that the 9/11 commissions account is the worst explanation in the world...except for every other explanation.

How's the NSA treating you, Dave? Do you get paid by the post or salary?

Just curious.

Originally posted by straightedge.73
How's the NSA treating you, Dave? Do you get paid by the post or salary?

Just curious.

...so when I say the conspiracy theorists have absolutely nothing to back up these claims of gov't plots and coverups except abject paranoia, how does your post show me to be wrong, exactly?

Originally posted by straightedge.73


How's the NSA treating you, Dave? Do you get paid by the post or salary?

Just curious.

It's cute how you guys think the government cares that much about you.

Do you think that there are whole agencies which are dedicated to 9/11 being covered up? Whole departments, with office space, cleaners, a vending machine? How on earth are they keeping them all quiet?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by jprophet420
DOES NOT MEAN
that the OS is true. Not by a longshot.

Absolutely true. But since the "OS" is a shorthand construct invented by the Truth Movement, you won't find many debunkers who are bothered about whether it's "true" or not.

For example how we got attacked by Saudis and invaded Afghanistan. The truth movement did that.

Or how the 911 commission report blamed George Tenet directly for not reporting intel to congress, and then it turned out he did report it and had proved it.

Or how they actually said we were invading Iraq not only for WMD, but because they were aiding and abetting "Al Queida" but then neither one turned out to be true.

Yeah there's no OS. Like when someone mentions Sibel Edmunds and they say "Oh she was post 911 so its a mute point". No, it would be a mute point if when she found the truth they wouldn't have put a gag order on her. Lets not forget for every gag order, there is a cover up by definition.

When I say OS, I mean the story the media and government presented. It is inconsistent and incomplete. I understand why you don't have the courage to stand by it.

Originally posted by jprophet420

For example how we got attacked by Saudis and invaded Afghanistan. The truth movement did that.

Or how the 911 commission report blamed George Tenet directly for not reporting intel to congress, and then it turned out he did report it and had proved it.

Or how they actually said we were invading Iraq not only for WMD, but because they were aiding and abetting "Al Queida" but then neither one turned out to be true.

Yeah there's no OS. Like when someone mentions Sibel Edmunds and they say "Oh she was post 911 so its a mute point". No, it would be a mute point if when she found the truth they wouldn't have put a gag order on her. Lets not forget for every gag order, there is a cover up by definition.

When I say OS, I mean the story the media and government presented. It is inconsistent and incomplete. I understand why you don't have the courage to stand by it.

Such a confused post. Most of it just backs up what I'm saying.

My point is that it's a pyrrhic victory to claim that just because you can't prove any of your wild accusations, the "OS" is still not automatically correct. First, because it's a literal admission of a big failure in your arguments. And second, because most "debunkers" don't care a hoot for your notion of the media and politicians' stories.

Weirdly you seek to illustrate this with a series of points that I - who I suppose am in the "debunker" camp - agree with, and which - even more bizarrely - the mainstream media did cover. In the process you prove, unwittingly, how there is indeed no "official story".

And why would I need "courage" to stand by something I don't believe? What a gigantic non-sequiter. You seem to imply that because I think the Truth Movement is a joke I have to sign up to what you euphemistically call the "OS" (something can't even keep straight in your own head). If I don't, I somehow lack courage?

This is extraordinarily weird. It is, in fact, almost the definition of a straw man. "You don't believe in the CD of the towers? That means you must think there were WMD is Iraq"; because I don't sign up to "no plane at the Pentagon" I have to think that invading Afghanistan was a good idea?

Is that seriously the extent of your argument?

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

Do you think that there are whole agencies which are dedicated to 9/11 being covered up? Whole departments, with office space, cleaners, a vending machine? How on earth are they keeping them all quiet?

Why yes, there is and are!

Like when those who stand out and speak the truth against TPTB and low and behold they end up dead rather quickly.

Like Barry Jennings who spoke about explosions in WTC 7 on floor 8 to reporters and died soon after.

Anyway.... How do you keep a vending machine quiet btw? rotf

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

Do you think that there are whole agencies which are dedicated to 9/11 being covered up? Whole departments, with office space, cleaners, a vending machine? How on earth are they keeping them all quiet?

Why yes, there is and are!

Like when those who stand out and speak the truth against TPTB and low and behold they end up dead rather quickly.

Like Barry Jennings who spoke about explosions in WTC 7 on floor 8 to reporters and died soon after.

Anyway.... How do you keep a vending machine quiet btw? rotf

Very strange! what about the other 928375987 people who heard explosions just like he did who didn't mysteriously die? There must be a reason for that.

I tried to read about him and the only sites I could find were like 911blogger.com and debunking911.com and debunkingthedebunkers.com. Not to say that this is not an accurate story I just would like to read about it from a website that is not a blog or forum website or a site that is devoted to 911truth or 911debunking.

[edit on 24-5-2010 by iamcpc]

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by straightedge.73
How's the NSA treating you, Dave? Do you get paid by the post or salary?

Just curious.

...so when I say the conspiracy theorists have absolutely nothing to back up these claims of gov't plots and coverups except abject paranoia, how does your post show me to be wrong, exactly?

Answer my question first, Dave and I would be happy to answer yours. Thank you.

Why yes, there is and are!

Where are they? And how do they keep every employee quiet? I assume you've worked in a bureaucracy. If so you'll understand how it's basically impossible to keep everybody happy, or to keep a lid on anything for very long. Most offices are rumour machines and they leak like a bucket with holes in the bottom.

How come the government - which is so incompetent in so many areas - is able to suddenly build a secret and silent department that nobody has ever heard of, and which never leaks?

Like Barry Jennings who spoke about explosions in WTC 7 on floor 8 to reporters and died soon after.

And yet so many other "whistleblowers" are still alive. Sibel Edmonds, Kurt Sonnenfeld. People like Richard Gage and Rob Balsamo - with their powerful truths - are somehow allowed to live. And make money.

Anyway.... How do you keep a vending machine quiet btw? rotf

Wrap it in towels.

Originally posted by straightedge.73
Answer my question first, Dave and I would be happy to answer yours. Thank you.

All right, if you insist. I'm not an agent of the NSA, nor the CIA, nor the FBI, nor the ATF, nor any other gov't agency you think is out to get you becuase I'm not employed by the gov't at all. Your asking me how I'm being paid as a gov't disinformation agent is therefore moot. Happy?

Now answer my question- how does your assuming in knee jerk reflex that I'm some secret gov't agent out to get you NOT prove that the main force driving the conspiracy movement is runaway abject paranoia? You seem to think my asking is all some attempt at diversion, but from where I sit, it's as pertinent a point as it gets.

Originally posted by straightedge.73
How's the NSA treating you, Dave? Do you get paid by the post or salary?

Just curious.

Whenever you see the accusation that someone opposing your argument is a government agent it's clear that you're dealing with someone devoid of an intellectual argument and infected with a marked paranoid pathology. Not surprising we see this diversionary tactic in a thread about diversionary tactics, but quite humorous how it enforces the stereotype.

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

Do you think that there are whole agencies which are dedicated to 9/11 being covered up? Whole departments, with office space, cleaners, a vending machine? How on earth are they keeping them all quiet?

Why yes, there is and are!

Like when those who stand out and speak the truth against TPTB and low and behold they end up dead rather quickly.

Like Barry Jennings who spoke about explosions in WTC 7 on floor 8 to reporters and died soon after.

Anyway.... How do you keep a vending machine quiet btw? rotf

Here is the thing about conspiracy theories. The more people that must be involved and must remain silent the less likely the conspiracy theory becomes. If there are a million people involved of the governments plot to murder thousands of innocent civillians and firefighters then one of them would have written a tell all book and mailed a copy of it (and the evidence to support it) to the FBI, the NYPD, TIME magazine, every college, CNN, MSNBC, BBC, the senate, the supreme court, the house of representatives, the white house as well as put it on a blog, on their facebook, on their myspace, and e-mailed it to all of their friends and family. If the WTC towers were demolished it's impossible for us to know how many people were involved to disprove the theory based on the sheer number of people involved.

If people can get paid to lie then they can also get paid to tell the truth.