Why _you_ are complicit in the attacks.

reply to post by kybertech


Hell, the jumpers are the easiest examples of faked photographs, and that thread was run out of here on a rail.

reply to post by snowcrash911


What? Slow down, I'm still stuck on grandiose.

Originally posted by septic
Project much?

Lest I forget: if all else fails, there are always the oneliners.

Thoughtless, paltry oneliners designed to achieve maximum distraction with minimal effort.

This forum has rules for decorum; foul language is seen as a violation but deliberately and repeatedly foisting emotional wedge issues such as "the 9/11 victims are fake" onto a forum is ten times more offensive yet does not violate the T & C. It is within this lacuna the provocateur thrives. One can be offensive and disruptive very easily without violating any rules; the provocateur simply waits for his detractors to step over the line and thereby self-terminate.

Should the opposite happen, the script calls for theatrical rants about "censorship" which further underscore the "persecution" cited as evidence for hoax claims, in lieu of actual evidence.

So... complicit in the attacks? That's a bit much, but does organized disruption and hoax promotion help the 9/11 cover-up by sabotaging efforts to expose it? You bet.

Of course, the inquisitive 9/11 beginner asks: but what if any of those no planer/no victim claims were true, wouldn't we want to know? Yes, of course, which is why, despite their offensive nature, using the framework of science, historiography and epistemology, these claims were investigated in the interest of fairness and objectivity, and found to be baseless; mostly rooted in meaningless hairsplitting in the face of massive, cumulative evidence to the contrary, reversal of the burden of proof and deliberate misdirection, deception and distortion.

However; if you truly believe the thousands of witnesses to UA 175 impacting the South Tower are "part of the plot", nothing can save you.

Well, that's it for me for this thread. Septic, it's all yours. Break out the bag of tricks!

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by septic
Project much?

Lest I forget: if all else fails, there are always the oneliners.

Thoughtless, paltry oneliners designed to achieve maximum distraction with minimal effort.

This forum has rules for decorum; foul language is seen as a violation but deliberately and repeatedly foisting emotional wedge issues such as "the 9/11 victims are fake" onto a forum is ten times more offensive yet does not violate the T & C. It is within this lacuna the provocateur thrives. One can be offensive and disruptive very easily without violating any rules; the provocateur simply waits for his detractors to step over the line and thereby self-terminate.

Should the opposite happen, the script calls for theatrical rants about "censorship" which further underscore the "persecution" cited as evidence for hoax claims, in lieu of actual evidence.

So... complicit in the attacks? That's a bit much, but does organized disruption and hoax promotion help the 9/11 cover-up by sabotaging efforts to expose it? You bet.

Of course, the inquisitive 9/11 beginner asks: but what if any of those no planer/no victim claims were true, wouldn't we want to know? Yes, of course, which is why, despite their offensive nature, using the framework of science, historiography and epistemology, these claims were investigated in the interest of fairness and objectivity, and found to be baseless; mostly based on meaningless hairsplitting in the face of massive, cumulative evidence to the contrary, reversal of the burden of proof and deliberate misdirection, deception and distortion.

Nonsense.

No subject should be off the table, and hiding behind false outrage for possible false victims only supports the perpetrators.

Who are the first suspects in a murder investigation? Family and friends. Do the cops stop short of investigating grieving family and friends of murder? No. Spare us your crocodile tears, no subject should be off the table and a real truther knows that. If I lost a loved one on 911 I'd be infuriated that you feel you can speak for my outrage, and I'd be even more incensed that you think the real murderers should be free to kill in my loved one's name.

reply to post by kybertech


Good thread, it's interesting to see how folks allegedly from opposite "sides" circle the wagons and agree certain topics are off limits.

As a conspirator, those "off-limits" subjects would be where I'd be hiding.

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by kybertech

 

Good thread, it's interesting to see how folks allegedly from opposite "sides" circle the wagons and agree certain topics are off limits.

So, whenever truthers, debunkers, mods, and innocent bystanders agree that the premise of a thread is ridiculous, or offensive or both, that means...

it must be correct!

therefore: "zionists" from the moon did 9/11 by tidal forces. Also. every 15+ story building in the US erected since 1949 contains mini-nukes in the basement as a safety feature(it's on a secret addendum to the IBC). in case a building burns uncontrollably (so it won't endanger its neighbors, it can just be vaporised). But Catholic Vatican drones under Queen Elizabeth's control(HMCSS) took out the twin towers and building 7 before this could take effect. But it does explain why cleanup took so long; they had to be careful not to set off the nukes (there are too many "italians" MAFIA on the cleanup detail for this to ever come out)! This is why I will never work in a tall office building.

This is why you won't find any hi-rez photos of the moon taken on 9/11: the gravity lenses (dews) that focused the tidal forces emanating from bases just behind the terminator would have been clearly visible. I saw them clearly, but at the time, I hadn't been exposed to Judge Judy woods' analysis of the Humpinison effect.

We should have nuked the moon, but the freemason GW Bush instead invaded Iraq and Afganistan. The "zionist" Rhodes Group needed 9/11 as an excuse to search for the ark of the covenant in the middle east. I have no doubt that The Malvinas are next. Soon the British will invade the "Falkland islands", even now, they have an advance force of commandos trained in the native language integrated with the population . I hope the argentines are ready to defend the ark!

I dare any of you debunkers to prove me wrong.

Especially Septic, the greatest and strongest of them all.

Originally posted by snowcrash911

So... complicit in the attacks? That's a bit much, but does organized disruption and hoax promotion help the 9/11 cover-up by sabotaging efforts to expose it? You bet.

Of course, the inquisitive 9/11 beginner asks: but what if any of those no planer/no victim claims were true, wouldn't we want to know? Yes, of course, which is why, despite their offensive nature, using the framework of science, historiography and epistemology, these claims were investigated in the interest of fairness and objectivity, and found to be baseless; mostly rooted in meaningless hairsplitting in the face of massive, cumulative evidence to the contrary, reversal of the burden of proof and deliberate misdirection, deception and distortion.

You know what my problem with this is: The same debating tactic is used by mainstream theory supporters against any conspiracy theory.

Look at the Myth-Busters hitpieces on thermate, they use some selfmade termite, conclude from their experiments that the theory has no scientific basis and omit that proponents state a nanofabricated compound was used.
On this forum OCT proponents argue that the burden of proof lies with with the opponents and when that proof is provided it is discarded as 'discredited' (Steve Jones infamous red chips for ex...)

The result is in case of 9/11 we have these 'camps'

Official conspiracy theory, fuled by the NIST report scatted on every board
Nanofabricated termite demolition theory, fuled by Steven Jones
No real plane theory & media fakery, fuled by Simon Shack
Pre-Demoltion & ommitted construction, fuled by Letsrollforums
Nuclear demolition, fuled by Dimitri Khalezov
Directed energy weapons, fuled by Judy Wood

Every camp has plenty of 'contrary evidence' to 'debunk' incompatible theories and since Steven Jones was on the infowars radio show he has been declared as the sole guru of righteousness on the subject.
It was very fun to watch Nuclear demolition being able to be discussed rationally for a while till he dismissed it.

Interestingly if I go to septemberclues.info and post that there is evidence of nanofabricated thermate I am ridiculed if not banned. If I go to prisonplanet.com and post about no real planes I face the same (and a ban is even publicly announced there). But nothing suggests that they should be incompatible. The more established the theories are the more intolerant their proponents become.

The provocateur label for originated on the pisonplanet forum and was only recently adapted here, so in a way this situation on ATS is due to spill over from their userbase. I don't think that the septemberclues members ever get numerous enough to attempt something like this but back to my initial assessment:

The non-tolerance of discussion by the staff is due to an attempt to reduce flame-wars for reason being that the winning camp was able to make it appear as they have consensus, which is only the case because of this overspill.

So to put it in popular terms: Go back to infowars

Originally posted by kybertech
You know what my problem with this is: The same debating tactic is used by mainstream theory supporters against any conspiracy theory.

Arguments may be used and misused by any side, that is no excuse to blanket declare them invalid.

Originally posted by kybertech
Look at the Myth-Busters hitpieces on thermate, they use some selfmade termite, conclude from their experiments that the theory has no scientific basis and omit that proponents state a nanofabricated compound was used.

AFAIK, Mythbusters never addressed 9/11 Truth even once in their episodes. They did perform experiments with thermite, with no reference to 9/11 Truth whatsoever. You may be confused with a different program from National Geographic.

Originally posted by kybertech
On this forum OCT proponents argue that the burden of proof lies with with the opponents

The burden of proof lies with the claimant, and leans towards the less plausible claim. What is plausible is determined, among other things, by precedent, feasibility and already available evidence.

Originally posted by kybertech
and when that proof is provided it is discarded as 'discredited' (Steve Jones infamous red chips for ex...)

Even after my falling out with Steven I have still been defending his paper on this forum. Successfully.

Originally posted by kybertech
The result is in case of 9/11 we have these 'camps'

Official conspiracy theory, fuled by the NIST report scatted on every board
Nanofabricated termite demolition theory, fuled by Steven Jones
No real plane theory & media fakery, fuled by Simon Shack
Pre-Demoltion & ommitted construction, fuled by Letsrollforums
Nuclear demolition, fuled by Dimitri Khalezov
Directed energy weapons, fuled by Judy Wood

Every camp has plenty of 'contrary evidence' to 'debunk' incompatible theories and since Steven Jones was on the infowars radio show he has been declared as the sole guru of righteousness on the subject.

He was the only one in 9/11 Truth circles actually employing the Scientific Method properly. The same thing cannot be said for Shack, Khalezov or Wood. Unfortunately, Steven has since degenerated into absurdity, expertly destroying his own reputation and thereby all hopes for his paper. Strange, that. Of course, "debunkers" will claim his paper never proved anything to begin with, and they will fail to make that point as usual. The only possible explanation that doesn't involve nanothermite in the WTC is Steven and his entire team fabricating data. That argument, I can accept. The rest... is rank mendacity.

Originally posted by kybertech
The provocateur label for originated on the pisonplanet forum and was only recently adapted here

"Provocateur" is a term first used in reference to strike-breakers, in the twenties, iirc. Prisonplanet has nothing to do with the birth of the term.

Originally posted by kybertech
So to put it in popular terms: Go back to infowars

I was never there, so I can't "go back". Nor will I sign up. They did reprint an article of mine once, without permission. My personal opinion of Alex Jones is that he's a conspiracy entrepreneur and a disinfotainment peddling harlequin. His MO is luring in the gullibles with some truth, subsequently saturating his target demographic with outlandish BS. Jones is mainly in it for the money.

Believe what you wish. However, once you lay claim to "scientific evidence", you must play within the rules of science. That is: the scientific method and its related ground rules and mores.

You can't list a group of people and simply declare a false equivalence between them. Jones and Harrit both have publications in respectable, peer reviewed journals, such as journals of nanochemistry, Nature and Physical Review Letters. I am not longer a supporter of Jones, and maybe I should have never been, but until his paper is properly refuted, without relying solely on false claims, irrelevant, peevish DSC-related objections and assorted straw grasping gambits, it stands.

Now, you may feel you can no longer see the forest for the trees, but I can. The instances over the last few years where I've had to admit an error are few and far between, with a batting average much higher than most "debunkers" or "truthers". It doesn't take a genius to separate the wheat from the chaff; just a steadfast dedication to brutal honesty and a rock solid BS detector, something few obtained since 9/11 nor can muster the intellectual integrity for. I have found many of the answers I was looking for regarding 9/11. Primarily, I come here to teach. Where I go to learn, I don't tell, lest that beautiful garden of knowledge be infested by the same ilk clobbering the rest of the web with cheap science-averse horse manure and pseudoskeptic handwaving, of which both "debunkers" and "truthers" are guilty.

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by kybertech
The result is in case of 9/11 we have these 'camps'

Official conspiracy theory, fuled by the NIST report scatted on every board
Nanofabricated termite demolition theory, fuled by Steven Jones
No real plane theory & media fakery, fuled by Simon Shack
Pre-Demoltion & ommitted construction, fuled by Letsrollforums
Nuclear demolition, fuled by Dimitri Khalezov
Directed energy weapons, fuled by Judy Wood

Every camp has plenty of 'contrary evidence' to 'debunk' incompatible theories and since Steven Jones was on the infowars radio show he has been declared as the sole guru of righteousness on the subject.

He was the only one in 9/11 Truth circles actually employing the Scientific Method properly. The same thing cannot be said for Shack, Khalezov or Wood. Unfortunately, Steven has since degenerated into absurdity, expertly destroying his own reputation and thereby all hopes for his paper. Strange, that. Of course, "debunkers" will claim his paper never proved anything to begin with, and they will fail to make that point as usual. The only possible explanation that doesn't involve nanothermite in the WTC is Steven and his entire team fabricating data. That argument, I can accept. The rest... is rank mendacity.

He has chosen the right format to publish his work, while others failed to do so.
But there is only so much you can do with something like a video recording or digital image. People work what is available to them and publish in the way they used to.

So should I assess superior rigor to a work because the way it is presented? I don't think so!

reply to post by kybertech


Its getting harder and harder for even the hardcore deniers to ignore the obvious. Certain sites and their "usual suspects" will do their best to throw digital sand into the eyes of the curious, but the 911 genie is already out of the bottle. Most of the conspiracy sites are likely operated by our friends at Langley, for our own good of course.

The sites that allow discussion of all topics and aren't afraid of the weak-kneed sacred cows of the controlled sites, are the sites that are blurring the line between conspiracy theory and conspiracy history.

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.”
― Noam Chomsky

www.goodreads.com...

Originally posted by firelight
reply to post by kybertech

 

Its getting harder and harder for even the hardcore deniers to ignore the obvious. Certain sites and their "usual suspects" will do their best to throw digital sand into the eyes of the curious, but the 911 genie is already out of the bottle. Most of the conspiracy sites are likely operated by our friends at Langley, for our own good of course.

The sites that allow discussion of all topics and aren't afraid of the weak-kneed sacred cows of the controlled sites, are the sites that are blurring the line between conspiracy theory and conspiracy history.

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.”
― Noam Chomsky

www.goodreads.com...

We can all quote Chomsky:

[More evidence that] the 9/11 movement is diverting energy and attention away from far more serious crimes -- and in this case crimes that are quite real and easily demonstrated.

― Noam Chomsky

Oh... And snitchjacketing is merely a way for the feeble-minded to redefine a CIA agent as "somebody who disagrees with me". It feeds into the persecution/victim playing gambit mentioned earlier, meant to support fringe theories in lieu of actual evidence. After all, if something is unwanted and despised it must be true, forgetting that such involuntary ostracism can be explained just as easily by the inherent nuttiness of the something in question.

Originally posted by kybertech
He has chosen the right format to publish his work, while others failed to do so.
But there is only so much you can do with something like a video recording or digital image. People work what is available to them and publish in the way they used to.

So should I assess superior rigor to a work because the way it is presented? I don't think so!

No, he properly followed the scientific method and his team's work on WTC dust analysis is fundamentally scientifically sound, which sets them apart from the rest.

But... like I implied earlier, I've added my 2c here, I'm ghost.

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by firelight
reply to post by kybertech

 

Its getting harder and harder for even the hardcore deniers to ignore the obvious. Certain sites and their "usual suspects" will do their best to throw digital sand into the eyes of the curious, but the 911 genie is already out of the bottle. Most of the conspiracy sites are likely operated by our friends at Langley, for our own good of course.

The sites that allow discussion of all topics and aren't afraid of the weak-kneed sacred cows of the controlled sites, are the sites that are blurring the line between conspiracy theory and conspiracy history.

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.”
― Noam Chomsky

www.goodreads.com...

We can all quote Chomsky:

[More evidence that] the 9/11 movement is diverting energy and attention away from far more serious crimes -- and in this case crimes that are quite real and easily demonstrated.

― Noam Chomsky

Oh... And snitchjacketing is merely a way for the feeble-minded to redefine a CIA agent as "somebody who disagrees with me". It feeds into the persecution/victim playing gambit mentioned earlier, meant to support fringe theories in lieu of actual evidence. After all, if something is unwanted and despised it must be true, forgetting that such involuntary ostracism can be explained just as easily by the inherent nuttiness of the something in question.

I don't know, it would work, and I know how important labels are to propagandists and psychologists, but I'm repeating myself...what do the manuals say?

reply to post by snowcrash911


According to this manual, it looks like I could have been using a version of this technique:

Testimonials. Testimonials are quotations, in or out of context, especially cited to support or reject a given policy, action, program, or personality. The reputation or the role (expert, respected public figure, etc.) of the individual giving the statement is exploited. The testimonial places the official sanction of a respected person or authority on a propaganda message. This is done in an effort to cause the target audience to identify itself with the authority or to accept the authority's opinions and beliefs as its own. Several types of testimonials are:

Official Sanction. The testimonial authority must have given the endorsement or be clearly on record as having approved the attributed idea, concept, action, or belief.

Four factors are involved:

Accomplishment. People have confidence in an authority who has demonstrated outstanding ability and proficiency in his field.This accomplishment should be related to the subject of the testimonial.
Identification with the target. People have greater confidence in an authority with whom they have a common bond. For example, the soldier more readily trusts an officer with whom he has undergone similar arduous experiences than a civilian authority on military subjects.
Position of authority. The official position of authority may instill confidence in the testimony; i.e., head of state, division commander, etc.
Inanimate objects. Inanimate objects may be used in the testimonial device. In such cases, the propagandist seeks to transfer physical attributes of an inanimate object to the message. The Rock of Gibraltar, for example, is a type of inanimate object associated with steadfast strength.

Personal Sources of Testimonial Authority:

Enemy leaders. The enemy target audience will generally place great value on its high level military leaders as a source of information.
Fellow soldiers. Because of their common experiences, soldiers form a bond of comradeship. As a result, those in the armed forces are inclined to pay close attention to what other soldiers have to say.
Opposing leaders. Testimonials of leaders of the opposing nation are of particular value in messages that outline war aims and objectives for administering the enemy nation after it capitulates.
Famous scholars, writers, and other personalities. Frequently, statements of civilians known to the target as authoritative or famous scholars, writers, scientists, commentators, etc., can be effectively used in propaganda messages.

Nonpersonal Sources of Testimonial Authority:

Institutions, ideologies, national flags, religious, and other nonpersonal sources are often used. The creeds, beliefs, principles, or dogmas of respected authorities or other public figures may make effective propaganda testimonials.

Factors To Be Considered:

Plausibility. The testimonial must be plausible to the target audience. The esteem in which an authority is held by the target audience will not always transfer an implausible testimonial into effective propaganda.

False testimonials. Never use false testimonials. Highly selective testimonials? Yes. Lies (fabrications)? Never. Fabricated (false) testimonials are extremely vulnerable because their lack of authenticity makes them easy to challenge and discredit.

This forum is dedicated to the discussion and speculation of cover-ups, scandals, and other conspiracies surrounding the events of 9/11/2001.

It is not a forum for debating site policy, nor for any form of "call-outs".

Anyone who disagrees with any provision of the AboveTopSecret.com Terms And Conditions Of Use or the policies of this forum is welcome to let us know, but this isn't the place for that, which is why this thread is closed.