-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What's The Difference?
- Thread starter poncho
- Start date
Funny thing about CTs, they're a little like muslims. If one of theirs decides the "theories" are garbage, they go after them with a vengence.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...m/2011/09/youre_not_paranoid_if_its_true.html
That's the thing about conspiracy theories and the people who believe in them: One man's poison pill is another's smoking gun. For much of the decade, 9/11 conspiracy theorists were united by (and benefited from) opposition to the war and hatred of George Bush. Not even direct assaults on the facts underlying their theories had much impact. As it turns out—as it usually turns out with conspiracy theories—the people most adept at weakening the "9/11 Truth" movement were the truthers themselves. Because conspiracy theorists can't just have disagreements. If you disagree with a conspiracy theorist, then you probably belong to the conspiracy.
In 2008, Alex Jones' website alleged that young New York-based conspiracist Nico Haupt was actually an undercover agent. Haupt was one of the very first conspiracy theorist leaders, starting to research and organize on the morning of 9/11. He was the first to report some of the military training exercises that were going on during the attacks, which Ruppert called "the holy grail" of 9/11 research and which the movement would use to argue that the military had been sabotaged from within.
But in 2005, Haupt started preaching a theory, referred to disparagingly by other conspiracists as the "no-planer" hypothesis, that the footage of jetliners hitting the WTC seen live on TV that morning was actually of holograms. Around that time, he started accusing other leaders in the movement, including Jones and David Ray Griffin, of being government plants themselves. At the end of 2006 he nearly got in a fist fight with Rolling Stone columnist Matt Taibbi, and by May 2008 he was accused of assaulting fellow conspiracists protesting at Ground Zero. He has not really been heard from since, says Ruppert, who calls him "a fringe guy who had a good heart who went crazy."
Jones would disagree. He and Luke Rudkowski, a young activist who has been described as a Jones protégé, took Haupt's increasingly outlandish behavior and violence as evidence that he was co-opted by the government. "This is a classic COINTELPRO operation, straight out the 1960s," Jones' website reported.
____________________________________________________
Veitch announced his "conversion" on June 29, 2011, on his blog and YouTube channel, saying that he hadn't been wrong to believe that the government was capable of orchestrating 9/11, but he had been wrong about the facts:
I think because the government has lied about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians have been killed, we do suspect foul play when other terrible events [happen] … and if governments can lie and kill half a million people, why wouldn't they lie about killing 3,000? It doesn't take an incredible leap of fantasy or faith or gullibility. We're not gullible, we're just truth seekers. And the 9/11 Truth movement is trying to find out the truth about what happened. … [But you should] not hold onto religious dogma. If you're presented with new evidence, take it on, even if it contradicts what you or your group might be believing or wanting to believe. You have to give the truth the greatest respect, and I do.
This relatively mild renunciation by a relatively minor advocate of 9/11 conspiracy theories was treated as major news in the conspiracy community. Veitch received threatening phone calls and emails. Donations to his site dried up. He was accused of having taken a payoff from the BBC, of having been subject to mind control by "neuro-linguistic programming experts," of being under hypnosis by British illusionist Derren Brown, and of being a Sunstein-sent cognitive infiltrator. "The best theory I heard has been that I have been deep undercover MI6 or CIA agent," Veitch said. "[They say] I was basically a one-man sleeper cell waiting to discredit the 9/11 Truth movement and destroy what they call 'the resistance' from within." Last month, Veitch's site was hacked and a message was sent to his 15,000 subscribers calling him a child abuser. "When your mom phones you saying, 'Why have you sent me something admitting to being a child molester?' it's not very good," Veitch said.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...m/2011/09/youre_not_paranoid_if_its_true.html
That's the thing about conspiracy theories and the people who believe in them: One man's poison pill is another's smoking gun. For much of the decade, 9/11 conspiracy theorists were united by (and benefited from) opposition to the war and hatred of George Bush. Not even direct assaults on the facts underlying their theories had much impact. As it turns out—as it usually turns out with conspiracy theories—the people most adept at weakening the "9/11 Truth" movement were the truthers themselves. Because conspiracy theorists can't just have disagreements. If you disagree with a conspiracy theorist, then you probably belong to the conspiracy.
In 2008, Alex Jones' website alleged that young New York-based conspiracist Nico Haupt was actually an undercover agent. Haupt was one of the very first conspiracy theorist leaders, starting to research and organize on the morning of 9/11. He was the first to report some of the military training exercises that were going on during the attacks, which Ruppert called "the holy grail" of 9/11 research and which the movement would use to argue that the military had been sabotaged from within.
But in 2005, Haupt started preaching a theory, referred to disparagingly by other conspiracists as the "no-planer" hypothesis, that the footage of jetliners hitting the WTC seen live on TV that morning was actually of holograms. Around that time, he started accusing other leaders in the movement, including Jones and David Ray Griffin, of being government plants themselves. At the end of 2006 he nearly got in a fist fight with Rolling Stone columnist Matt Taibbi, and by May 2008 he was accused of assaulting fellow conspiracists protesting at Ground Zero. He has not really been heard from since, says Ruppert, who calls him "a fringe guy who had a good heart who went crazy."
Jones would disagree. He and Luke Rudkowski, a young activist who has been described as a Jones protégé, took Haupt's increasingly outlandish behavior and violence as evidence that he was co-opted by the government. "This is a classic COINTELPRO operation, straight out the 1960s," Jones' website reported.
____________________________________________________
Veitch announced his "conversion" on June 29, 2011, on his blog and YouTube channel, saying that he hadn't been wrong to believe that the government was capable of orchestrating 9/11, but he had been wrong about the facts:
I think because the government has lied about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians have been killed, we do suspect foul play when other terrible events [happen] … and if governments can lie and kill half a million people, why wouldn't they lie about killing 3,000? It doesn't take an incredible leap of fantasy or faith or gullibility. We're not gullible, we're just truth seekers. And the 9/11 Truth movement is trying to find out the truth about what happened. … [But you should] not hold onto religious dogma. If you're presented with new evidence, take it on, even if it contradicts what you or your group might be believing or wanting to believe. You have to give the truth the greatest respect, and I do.
This relatively mild renunciation by a relatively minor advocate of 9/11 conspiracy theories was treated as major news in the conspiracy community. Veitch received threatening phone calls and emails. Donations to his site dried up. He was accused of having taken a payoff from the BBC, of having been subject to mind control by "neuro-linguistic programming experts," of being under hypnosis by British illusionist Derren Brown, and of being a Sunstein-sent cognitive infiltrator. "The best theory I heard has been that I have been deep undercover MI6 or CIA agent," Veitch said. "[They say] I was basically a one-man sleeper cell waiting to discredit the 9/11 Truth movement and destroy what they call 'the resistance' from within." Last month, Veitch's site was hacked and a message was sent to his 15,000 subscribers calling him a child abuser. "When your mom phones you saying, 'Why have you sent me something admitting to being a child molester?' it's not very good," Veitch said.
poncho
Well-Known Member
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." -- Socrates
Can it get any more obvious that the "debunkers" have lost the debate?
Take away their ridicule, personal attacks and program of character assassination (slander) what do they have left in the way of an argument?
Not much.
At this point it's like watching a tragic comedy taking place on a stage, when one person's trash talking and attempts to silence the opposition by slander isn't working they gang up on the opposition as if multiplying and combining the number of insults and personal attacks into a chorus somehow makes these types of responses valid and credible.
Such is the strength of the "consensus" argument that it has to be defended in such a shallow predictable manner.
Now that we have seen the best arguments (sic) the 9/11 "debunkers" can muster it's time to again ask the question . . . "what's the difference"?
How are the 9/11 "debunker's" arguments any different than those used by the "global warming" believers?
How are the 9/11 "debunker's" arguments any different than those used by the anti gun people?
The "global warming" believers tell us the "science is settled" and point to how many scientists with "peer reviewed" papers to their name there are that believe in "global warming" and anyone who questions this "consensus" is insane and shouldn't be allowed a platform to raise questions that challenge the "consensus".
How is that any different from the 9/11 "debunker's" argument?
The anti gun people are always ready to "dance in the blood of the victims" of gun violence to shame their opponents into silence and force us to relinquish another bit of our liberty to advance their agenda.
There's one minor difference that I can see in the arguments of the "anti gunners" and the 9/11 "debunkers" the anti gunners don't wrap themselves in the flag to put on a show of faux patriotism before they go about "dancing in the blood of the victims" to shame their opponents into silence, force us to relinquish more of our liberties, and acquiesce to a corrupt authoritarian governmental system.
Not much of a difference in the tactics used by either group really, Both use the victims as pawns while attempting to "shame" their opponents into silence. In this they reveal how they have no shame themselves.
So again . . . what's the difference?
I see very little difference at all so the next question should be . . .
What do the "global warming" believers, the anti gunners, and radical leftists have in common with the 9/11 "debunkers"?
Having failed to silence their opposition through "shaming" and slander they are now calling for censorship and the criminalization of opposing views.
If you don't think the 9/11 "debunkers" aka "anti conspiracy theorists" are doing this then you haven't read Cass Sunstein's book or this "scholarly paper" in which he proposes . . .
The "take away" from all this is that we are now witnessing the lefties and the righties holding hands
and using the same tactics to defeat their common enemies . . . truth and individual liberty.
Can it get any more obvious that the "debunkers" have lost the debate?
Take away their ridicule, personal attacks and program of character assassination (slander) what do they have left in the way of an argument?
Not much.
At this point it's like watching a tragic comedy taking place on a stage, when one person's trash talking and attempts to silence the opposition by slander isn't working they gang up on the opposition as if multiplying and combining the number of insults and personal attacks into a chorus somehow makes these types of responses valid and credible.
Such is the strength of the "consensus" argument that it has to be defended in such a shallow predictable manner.
Now that we have seen the best arguments (sic) the 9/11 "debunkers" can muster it's time to again ask the question . . . "what's the difference"?
How are the 9/11 "debunker's" arguments any different than those used by the "global warming" believers?
How are the 9/11 "debunker's" arguments any different than those used by the anti gun people?
The "global warming" believers tell us the "science is settled" and point to how many scientists with "peer reviewed" papers to their name there are that believe in "global warming" and anyone who questions this "consensus" is insane and shouldn't be allowed a platform to raise questions that challenge the "consensus".
How is that any different from the 9/11 "debunker's" argument?
The anti gun people are always ready to "dance in the blood of the victims" of gun violence to shame their opponents into silence and force us to relinquish another bit of our liberty to advance their agenda.
There's one minor difference that I can see in the arguments of the "anti gunners" and the 9/11 "debunkers" the anti gunners don't wrap themselves in the flag to put on a show of faux patriotism before they go about "dancing in the blood of the victims" to shame their opponents into silence, force us to relinquish more of our liberties, and acquiesce to a corrupt authoritarian governmental system.
Not much of a difference in the tactics used by either group really, Both use the victims as pawns while attempting to "shame" their opponents into silence. In this they reveal how they have no shame themselves.
So again . . . what's the difference?
I see very little difference at all so the next question should be . . .
What do the "global warming" believers, the anti gunners, and radical leftists have in common with the 9/11 "debunkers"?
Having failed to silence their opposition through "shaming" and slander they are now calling for censorship and the criminalization of opposing views.
If you don't think the 9/11 "debunkers" aka "anti conspiracy theorists" are doing this then you haven't read Cass Sunstein's book or this "scholarly paper" in which he proposes . . .
The "take away" from all this is that we are now witnessing the lefties and the righties holding hands
Last edited:
Yep. We've seen a lot of that out of the CTs. Whenever one of their own changes sides, they attack with a vengence, up to and including death threats.
poncho
Well-Known Member
Now that we've had a chance to hear from both sides in this debate what's the difference between AE9/11Truth, and other researchers . . . the "truthers" and the 9/11 "debunkers" the "anti-truthers" evidence, science and arguments?
AE9/11Truth, and other researchers . . . the "truthers" question all the omissions and misinformation in the 9/11 Commission report, the total lack of a criminal investigation into one of if not the largest crimes on American soil and the soundness of the "science" NIST used to come to their conclusions.
The 9/11 "debunkers", the "anti-truthers" make personal attacks on and demonize anyone asking questions. In other words, they depend on a campaign of ridicule and character assassination to scare people away from asking questions, doing their own research or voicing a different opinion than the "anti-truthers".
AE9/11Truth, and other researchers . . . the "truthers" have produced an alternative hypothesis that explains the collapse of the three buildings at or near free fall speed using evidence and science that doesn't depend on ignoring or violating Newton's laws to come to their conclusions.
The 9/11 "debunkers", the "anti-truthers" make personal attacks on and demonize anyone asking questions. In other words, they depend on a campaign of ridicule and character assassination to scare people away from asking questions, doing their own research or voicing a different opinion than the "anti-truthers".
AE9/11Truth, and other researchers . . . the "truthers" have openly published their findings and conclusions and the scientific methods they used to reach them.
The 9/11 "debunkers", the "anti-truthers" have published a plethora of un-scientific "hit pieces" that never ask why NIST feels the need to hide the data it used in it's models which makes any peer review of that data and the models impossible or how the alleged 9/11 hijackers were able to suspend Newton's laws on the day of the attacks.
In other words, they still depend on a campaign of ridicule and character assassination to scare people away from asking questions, doing their own research or voicing a different opinion than the "anti-truthers". The "anti-truthers" also heavily depend as our friend Carpro has just shown us again on the belief that everyone they the "anti-truthers" lump together and hang the label of "conspiracy theorist" is in fact part of the "9/11 truth movement". When in fact they are not. There are many disinformation artists posing as "truthers" who's agenda is to call attention to themselves and "poison the well" of information presented by legitimate researchers.
In this thread you've had a chance to see the evidence for and against the "official story" of the 9/11 attacks.
I'll leave it to the reader to decide which side's evidence and science and arguments are more compelling and therefore more credible.
AE9/11Truth, and other researchers . . . the "truthers" question all the omissions and misinformation in the 9/11 Commission report, the total lack of a criminal investigation into one of if not the largest crimes on American soil and the soundness of the "science" NIST used to come to their conclusions.
The 9/11 "debunkers", the "anti-truthers" make personal attacks on and demonize anyone asking questions. In other words, they depend on a campaign of ridicule and character assassination to scare people away from asking questions, doing their own research or voicing a different opinion than the "anti-truthers".
AE9/11Truth, and other researchers . . . the "truthers" have produced an alternative hypothesis that explains the collapse of the three buildings at or near free fall speed using evidence and science that doesn't depend on ignoring or violating Newton's laws to come to their conclusions.
The 9/11 "debunkers", the "anti-truthers" make personal attacks on and demonize anyone asking questions. In other words, they depend on a campaign of ridicule and character assassination to scare people away from asking questions, doing their own research or voicing a different opinion than the "anti-truthers".
AE9/11Truth, and other researchers . . . the "truthers" have openly published their findings and conclusions and the scientific methods they used to reach them.
The 9/11 "debunkers", the "anti-truthers" have published a plethora of un-scientific "hit pieces" that never ask why NIST feels the need to hide the data it used in it's models which makes any peer review of that data and the models impossible or how the alleged 9/11 hijackers were able to suspend Newton's laws on the day of the attacks.
In other words, they still depend on a campaign of ridicule and character assassination to scare people away from asking questions, doing their own research or voicing a different opinion than the "anti-truthers". The "anti-truthers" also heavily depend as our friend Carpro has just shown us again on the belief that everyone they the "anti-truthers" lump together and hang the label of "conspiracy theorist" is in fact part of the "9/11 truth movement". When in fact they are not. There are many disinformation artists posing as "truthers" who's agenda is to call attention to themselves and "poison the well" of information presented by legitimate researchers.
In this thread you've had a chance to see the evidence for and against the "official story" of the 9/11 attacks.
I'll leave it to the reader to decide which side's evidence and science and arguments are more compelling and therefore more credible.
Last edited:
Why conspiracies live on...
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/trutherism/2011/09/why_trutherism_lives_on.html
...there will probably always be 9/11 conspiracy theories. "I think that it was inevitable that a conspiracy, maybe many conspiracy theories, would arise, because inordinate tragedy is almost always accompanied by such conspiracies," says Lawrence Wright, whose Pulitzer Prize winning Looming Tower is the definitive account of the rise of al-Qaida. "People have a view of the world and they want to make the facts conform to that view."
Professional conspiracists like radio host Alex Jones and Ruppert preached conspiracy theories for years before 2001. But for many "truthers," as they would call themselves, the 9/11 conspiracy was a kind of gateway drug. Most of the leading activists I spoke with became involved in the movement because of the Iraq war, but their anger at the Bush administration soon spread to all major institutions of government and media. "In order to maintain the bubble of the conspiracy, it needs to get more demonic, and it needs to include more people," explains 9/11 conspiracy apostate Charlie Veitch. "You need more and more evil until you hit the wall of absurdity."
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/trutherism/2011/09/why_trutherism_lives_on.html
...there will probably always be 9/11 conspiracy theories. "I think that it was inevitable that a conspiracy, maybe many conspiracy theories, would arise, because inordinate tragedy is almost always accompanied by such conspiracies," says Lawrence Wright, whose Pulitzer Prize winning Looming Tower is the definitive account of the rise of al-Qaida. "People have a view of the world and they want to make the facts conform to that view."
Professional conspiracists like radio host Alex Jones and Ruppert preached conspiracy theories for years before 2001. But for many "truthers," as they would call themselves, the 9/11 conspiracy was a kind of gateway drug. Most of the leading activists I spoke with became involved in the movement because of the Iraq war, but their anger at the Bush administration soon spread to all major institutions of government and media. "In order to maintain the bubble of the conspiracy, it needs to get more demonic, and it needs to include more people," explains 9/11 conspiracy apostate Charlie Veitch. "You need more and more evil until you hit the wall of absurdity."
poncho
Well-Known Member
Anyone else notice how Carpro avoids addressing the omissions in the 9/11 Commission report, the total lack of a criminal investigation and how NIST had to ignore Newton's laws in order to come to it's conclusions?
He's really good at smear and character assassination, not so good at addressing the actual issues AE9/11Truth and people like David Ray Griffin and other researchers have brought up.
That's why there's always going to be "conspiracy theories" the "debunkers" spend all their time smearing those who ask the questions instead of honestly answering the questions.
Maybe if NIST came up with a hypothesis that didn't have to ignore Newton's laws to explain the collapse of WTC 1, 2 and 7 the "truthers" would find them a bit more credible. As it is NIST uses the same kind of "science" the IPCC used to come to it's conclusion that global warming is man made.
The IPCC ignores the effects of the sun, NIST ignores Newton's laws.
He's really good at smear and character assassination, not so good at addressing the actual issues AE9/11Truth and people like David Ray Griffin and other researchers have brought up.
That's why there's always going to be "conspiracy theories" the "debunkers" spend all their time smearing those who ask the questions instead of honestly answering the questions.
Maybe if NIST came up with a hypothesis that didn't have to ignore Newton's laws to explain the collapse of WTC 1, 2 and 7 the "truthers" would find them a bit more credible. As it is NIST uses the same kind of "science" the IPCC used to come to it's conclusion that global warming is man made.
The IPCC ignores the effects of the sun, NIST ignores Newton's laws.
Last edited:
I am really interested in the report about the shooting down of flight 93.
Having been in the USAF - to take out a civilian aircraft to defend a target of "greater value" is not out of the question.
HankD
poncho
Well-Known Member
http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/sections/index.php?op=viewarticle&artid=167
DVD 1
PART 1 - AIR DEFENSE
0.14:55 - Where are the interceptors?
0.16:12 - The "incompetence theory"
(radars, transponders)
0.22:00 - The military drills
0.29:40 - Specific warnings
0.33:08 - The chain of command
0.38:10 - Promotions, not punishments
0.39:50 - The Mineta case
0.47:38 - Debunkers: "Mineta was mistaken"
0.53:18 - The Mineta case - A summary
DVD 2
PART 5 - FLIGHT 93
0.24.15 - The empty hole
0.28.00 - The debunkers' explanations
0.33:00 - Plane crash or bomb explosion?
0.34:50 - The debris field
0.37.20 - The shootdown hypothesis
0.38:50 - The small white plane
0.41:40 - "Let's roll"
0.44:25 - Summary of Flight 93
poncho
Well-Known Member
I'm wondering if I should change the title of this thread to something like "Debunker Smear Vs Truther Questions And Evidence . . . You Decide".
DVD 2
0.45:10 - Introduction
0.47:45 - The Towers' small dirty secret
0.53:10 - Larry Silverstein
0.56:15 - NIST vs. Architects & Engineers
0.58:00 - Robust or fragile buildings?
1.04:45 - The initial collapse - Explanation #1
1.05:45 - The initial collapse - Explanation #2
1.07:35 - Problems with the official explanation
1.18:00 - The full collapse - No official explanation
1.18:50 - Law of physics violated <--- Start Here ---
1.20:50 - The Twin Towers and freefall
1.27:50 - Debunkers' response to A&E
DVD 2
0.45:10 - Introduction
0.47:45 - The Towers' small dirty secret
0.53:10 - Larry Silverstein
0.56:15 - NIST vs. Architects & Engineers
0.58:00 - Robust or fragile buildings?
1.04:45 - The initial collapse - Explanation #1
1.05:45 - The initial collapse - Explanation #2
1.07:35 - Problems with the official explanation
1.18:00 - The full collapse - No official explanation
1.18:50 - Law of physics violated <--- Start Here ---
1.20:50 - The Twin Towers and freefall
1.27:50 - Debunkers' response to A&E
Last edited:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/trutherism/2011/09/why_trutherism_lives_on.html
Veitch ( a former truther) compared being a believer in the theory to being in a cult. "There's so many people with so much of a vested political and psychological interest in maintaining, what I call the 'Conspiranoia,' view of the world—that there are these demons just behind the scenes where we can't see, running everything," Veitch told conspiracy theorist Max Igan. Veitch is one of the rare cases of a conspiracy theorist going back on his views.
Veitch ( a former truther) compared being a believer in the theory to being in a cult. "There's so many people with so much of a vested political and psychological interest in maintaining, what I call the 'Conspiranoia,' view of the world—that there are these demons just behind the scenes where we can't see, running everything," Veitch told conspiracy theorist Max Igan. Veitch is one of the rare cases of a conspiracy theorist going back on his views.
poncho
Well-Known Member
That's some theory Carpro. But again it doesn't address any of the concerns with the 9/11 Commission report, or why there was never a criminal investigation, or why NIST has to keep ignoring Newton's laws to explain the total collapse of three buildings.
I think I know the answer but for the sake of other readers I have to ask . . . is there going to come a point in the near future where you stop with the smear campaign and start addressing the concerns listed above?
"What's the difference" between my arguments and your arguments?
My arguments center on the facts, evidence and science.
Your arguments center on "personalities".
In other words AE9/11Truth, and other researchers are running an investigation to sort fact from fiction while your "debunkers" are running a political campaign to smear them.
Address the facts, evidence and science Carpro. Smearing people only proves you can smear people. Don't get me wrong you've got real talent and a lot of energy when it comes to smearing people but that talent and energy would be put to better use in a political campaign run by the Clinton's rather than an investigation into the facts, evidence and science of 9/11.
Last edited: