The Idiocy Behind the '9/11 Truth' Movement

by **bvonahsen** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 1:29 am

Rigorous Intuition  <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I think Taibbi's issue also entails the discrediting of all inquiry by having the least sound arguments stand for the whole.<hr></blockquote> I don't agree, I think there are worse arguments he could have gone after. But... ok then, where is your best evidence? If Taibbi is picking low hanging fruit where is the best then? Or is it safer to just snipe from the side lines? Got proof?  nashvillebrook  <blockquote>Quote:<hr>that's what nomo would have us believe. we can't critque arguments that are showing holes UNTIL and UNLESS we have a complete ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION.<hr></blockquote> People are of course allowed to poke holes. What you are not allowed to do is to claim there are holes when they aren't there. And at some point you really are obligated to have a theory of your own. It is a lot like the creationist/ evolution arguments. which goes something like: Make false unscientific claims. Misquote, misrepresent, lie and just plain make up anything you can imagine against your opponent. Gather non-experts who will support your claim and if you can't find them, make it up. By all means, use lawyers, engineers, doctors... anyone except a real scientist. Use every possible means at your disposal, fake evidence, faulty reasoning, whatever it takes, but never, ever publish an article in a juried publication. When that fails make up your own publication and ape real scholarly journals by quoting yourselves. Just make sure your leader is a third rate philosopher from the University of Duluth. When all else fails, buy yourself a politician.  pugzleyca3  <blockquote>Quote:<hr>people know there is something wrong with the GOVERNMENT'S theory and that is what needs to be addressed and the holes in it.<hr></blockquote> Then prove it. So far, the 9-11 truth movement has failed to do so. Why? Because it has not produced it's own theory, one that accounts for all the facts. That is how scientific reasoning actually works you know. At some point, you have to put up or shut up. Example, there are all kinds of nutcases out there who claim to be able to refute the Theory of Relativity. They claim that there are all kinds of holes in the theory and so on. They are wrong. Why? Because their theories, those that have one, are either incoherent or provably wrong. Period, end of story. nashvillebrook  <blockquote>Quote:<hr>my new boyfriend is a penn'n'teller-esque insult skeptic when it comes to issues of 911. <hr></blockquote> I think this is a valid point. One part of the problem is that real solid debunking isn't very entertaining. It doesn't make for good TV. But that by its self doesn't prove them wrong. In general, Penn and Teller are right and the people they expose really are the fools they appear to be, even if they can be obnoxious about it too.

by **maggrwaggr** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:40 am

The media doesn't cover the story for the same reason the media doesn't cover the FACT that George W. Bush's grandfather, Senator Prescott Bush, helped finance the Nazis. The same reason they don't cover the FACT that the CIA brought in known Nazis to join their ranks after WWII. The same reason they don't cover the FACT that forensics prove that Kennedy could not have been killed by Oswald and that in fact the shots came from the grassy knoll. There's just a whole ton of stuff that the media doesn't cover, and they don't cover it on purpose. They don't cover the truth about 9/11 because it makes the powers that be, and themselves VERY UNCOMFORTABLE. They don't want to be the messengers who are killed when Americans realize the whole thing was a lie, and that yes, the neocons are in fact that evil, and that the whole 9/11 thing was pure PSYOPS from the people who truly run this country -- the same people who killed JFK - this strain of evil motherfuckers who run all the way back to WWII and Allan Dulles, the Harrimans, the Walkers, the Bushes, etc. etc. etc. In fact, it goes back further than WWII but after WWII is when they really grabbed power. Like George Carlin said once night on Bill Maher, Hitler lost WWII, but fascism won. Fascism won indeed, and it liked what it saw in America, and it fucking moved here and set up shop.

by **pugzleyca3** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:52 am

"Then prove it. So far, the 9-11 truth movement has failed to do so. Why? Because it has not produced it's own theory, one that accounts for all the facts. That is how scientific reasoning actually works you know. At some point, you have to put up or shut up." No, it is not up to me to prove there are holes in their story. It is up to me to ask the questions that they haven't answered to my satisfaction which in my book constitute GAPING HOLES. It is up to them answer truthfully and with full disclosure. I am sure you have seen the questions hundreds of times in hundreds of places if you've been digging into this. I want to see a picture of the plane hitting the Pentagon. And I am not a "no-planer", I just want to see it. Why won't they release that information? The so called truth movement is not a scientific laboratory where their findings are going to be peer reviewed. Maybe the entire movement is skewed and instead of opining and speculating on the answers, we should kick the government's ass and concentrate on making them come clean about the whole affair. The problem is, the only time they were supposed to do that, it was a commission appointed by Bush himself. The people making these claims (the official theory) are elected PUBLIC servants and they are the ones with all the information. And it is because of their behavior, the resulting power grabs, the exponential growth of government, the looting of the treasury, the 2 wars we are into with them beating the drum for more and the loss of most of the bill of rights, the legalization of torture, the Patriot Act and on and on... that I want to know what happened that day. The govt. invokes the specter of 9/11 at every turn, for every right they snatch, for every war they fight or want to fight. If it is going to be used to turn America into a fascist or totalitarian state, then I guess they simply won't answer. They are the ones who had better put up or shut the fuck up because they are only in office and paid to be there through the good graces of their constituents. (unless the elections are rigged as many people believe). If our whoring media would ask these tough questions and cover this story in a professional way, maybe then I'll stop asking so many questions but until that time, I won't be muzzled by anyone. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=pugzleyca3>pugzleyca3</A> at: 10/26/06 2:06 am

by **HMKGrey** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 4:20 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>If our whoring media would ask these tough questions and cover this story in a professional way, maybe then I'll stop asking so many questions but until that time, I won't be muzzled by anyone.<hr></blockquote> Thanks, Pugz. Spot on.

by **pugzleyca3** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 4:40 am

Hi maggrwaggr, I hear ya. This is one sick and sorry assed state of affairs isn't it? You know, I've been hearing people say "This country is going to hell in a handbasket" for years and years. And they were right. Someone tried to counter that, by pointing out that people had been saying the same ole thing since the inception of this country and basically implied that it was not true in a literal sense. I've found out it is. Each generation in this country loses more and more rights, since they are born with less rights than the previous ones, of course this is all they have ever known and they will complain a bit when the govt. snatches something away from them, but it cools off and they move along. So it goes, generation after generation... Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=pugzleyca3>pugzleyca3</A> at: 10/26/06 2:42 am

by **pugzleyca3** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 4:56 am

HMK, Have you ever wondered why Alex Jones and some of the other influential 9/11 websites have not organized a peaceful email/fax/phone campaign demanding that the media cover 9/11 questions in a professional and unbiased manner? And demand that they interview the government officials. I know they are capable of generating activity, I've seen them do it before, such as the time Sheen went public about 9/11 on Entertainment Tonight. Probably enough to clog the email boxes of the msm. One thing that bothers me about this truth movement is that they are constantly ramping up the outrage and highlighting holes in the official story, yet they never offer an outlet other than "do your own research" and "WAKE UP!!!!!" Well, I'm awake now, what am I supposed to do? This is extremely irritating to me, being woke up in the midst of my slumber by a shocking revelation and then... nothing to follow but insomnia for the rest of my life. Oh, and the bitching, lots and lots of bitching. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol"> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=pugzleyca3>pugzleyca3</A> at: 10/26/06 2:58 am

by **erosoplier** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:59 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>One thing that bothers me about this truth movement is that they are constantly ramping up the outrage and highlighting holes in the official story, yet they never offer an outlet other than "do your own research" and "WAKE UP!!!!!" Well, I'm awake now, what am I supposed to do? This is extremely irritating to me, being woke up in the midst of my slumber by a shocking revelation and then... nothing to follow but insomnia for the rest of my life. Oh, and the bitching, lots and lots of bitching.<hr></blockquote> Is this just evidence of the victory of neo-liberal ideology in the "marketplace of ideas" in America? (Or the "sheltered workshop of ideas" in America, depending on how you look at it?). Government, at bottom, is nothing more than a blood-sucking leach. It is an unacceptable shackle on the activities of freedom-loving individuals everywhere. Why on earth would you then turn to it, or any other communally empowered public institution, when there is a demand for justice? ie. Have Americans simply been brainwashed into expecting nothing from their public institutions? "We fight this fight alone, comrade."

by **Dreams End** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 10:42 am

there is enough information to put the administration in jail (sadly, not many of those behind the scenes though) without one bomb (thermite or otherwise) or one remote control plane (pod or otherwise) or one cruise missile (painted with airline colors or otherwise). That's why I get frustrated. Arguments about the physics...even if resolved...don't tell you whodunnit. But there's plenty of other evidence. What I have been assuming is that the unpopularity of the war and maybe enough questions about 9/11 have been building up that a few scapegoats will be tossed to the masses. Mostly, I imagine this will be done electorally...and as the worst of the Repubs and neocons are seen to be in retreat, the urgency behind 9/11 will die down. Shouldn't. But it will.

by **Bismillah** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 10:56 am

bvonahsen: "Then prove it. So far, the 9-11 truth movement has failed to do so. Why? Because it has not produced it's own theory, one that accounts for all the facts. That is how scientific reasoning actually works you know. At some point, you have to put up or shut up." That is not how scientific reasoning actually works, you know. If you tell me that Mount Rushmore is made of cheese, I can disprove that "theory" very easily by asking you to eat a lump of it. This does not oblige me to prove what Mount Rushmore is really made of. While the helicopter takes you to hospital with broken teeth and a stomach full of rock, I have already proven that Mount Rushmore is not made of cheese. Which is the first point at issue. To find out what the mountain is really made of, I would require full access to the mountain and permission to dig very deeply. Preseumably it's made of several different substances /and maybe there's actually some cheese there too, from a dropped sandwich). The Bush Gang are still insisting that Mount Rushmore is made entirely of cheese. You're happy to accept that, even though it's been proven a hundred times over that it isn't. So your attitude is anything but scientific. "Example, there are all kinds of nutcases out there who claim to be able to refute the Theory of Relativity. They claim that there are all kinds of holes in the theory and so on. They are wrong. Why? Because their theories, those that have one, are either incoherent or provably wrong. Period, end of story." Oh, brilliant. So the Bush Gang's grotesquely threadbare, self-serving and self-contradictory account ot the 9/11 attacks - produced by a Commission of handpicked toadies and political timeservers - is strictly comparable to Einstein's Theory of Relativity. I refer you to Jeff Wells' Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11: <a href="http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/08/coincidence-theorists-guide-to-911.html">rigorousintuition.blogspo...o-911.html</a> The burden of proof lies with the Bush Gang, and there's the proof that Mount Rushmore is not made of cheese. "Period, end of story."

by **bvonahsen** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 11:29 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The Bush Gang are still insisting that Mount Rushmore is made entirely of cheese. You're happy to accept that,<hr></blockquote> I don't accept the official explanation but at least it is in the realm of what is possible in this universe. Sadly, most 9-11 conspiracy theories are not even physically possible. Others tear credulity to shreds. I like what Matt Taibbi says. He has made a clear, consistent and logical argument that the 911 movement does not seem able to reply to. The overwhelming evidence is that this is an incredibly incompetent administration. They are not able to manage a conspiracy of the magnitude it would take to cover up 911. I addition, I think it is in their interest to deliberately confuse the issue. That's is why I believe they do not release the video that would prove one way or another the truth about what happened at the Pentagon. It is in their interest not to. It's the number one job of a bureaucrat, cover your ass. I think that goes a long way to explain things and doesn't involve real time CG video faked planes, or mini-nukes, or missiles at the pentagon. Occams' razor say we should give more credit to bureaucrats covering up their own incompetence rather than believing in UFOs at World Trades 1 and 2. It isn't that hard, what seems to be hard is giving up comforting theories that explain our current political state. Believing in all knowing, super intelligent, ultra secret societies like the Masons or the Illuminati or that catchall "the powers that be", this seems to be preferable to a real world with real fallible human beings who sometimes just plain fuck up.

by **sunny** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 11:37 am

If 9-11 theories are so wacky and utterly without merit, and the theorists themselves so crazy and delusional, why the constant efforts to debunk them? Why are national magazines, columnists, reporters, forum posters, and finger-wagging "grown-ups" so interested in proving them wrong? Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you Phillip Zelikow, Executive Director of the 9-11 Commission, and a person ripe for debunking: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_D._Zelikow">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_D._Zelikow</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Prof. Zelikow's area of academic expertise is the creation and maintenance of, in his words, “public myths” or “public presumptions,” which he defines as “beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community." In his academic work and elsewhere he has taken a special interest in what he has called “‘searing’ or ‘molding’ events [that] take on ‘transcendent’ importance and, therefore, retain their power even as the experiencing generation passes from the scene.<hr></blockquote> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Because Philip Zelikow's significant involvement with the administration of George W. Bush, many have questioned the propriety of his position as executive director of the 9/11 Commission, which examined the conduct of George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice. Both the 9/11 Family Steering Committee and 9-11 Citizens Watch demanded his resignation, due to this apparent conflict of interest, without success.<hr></blockquote> Now, let us debunk the "Arabs" did it canard: <a href="http://www.geocities.com/mknemesis/passengers.html" target="top">Find the Arabs</a>. <a href="http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/02/article_tro.htm" target="top">Please</a>, <a href="http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/07/article_tro_flight77.htm" target="top">find the Arabs</a>. Now, debunkers, prove to us which of the passengers were the hijackers. Were the Arabs ghost passengers? How did they get on the planes? Which of the names on the flight manifests did they use? If you can come up with names, prove these were the hijackers.Would you like to tell us these are insignificant details?

by **bvonahsen** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 1:31 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>If 9-11 theories are so wacky and utterly without merit, and the theorists themselves so crazy and delusional, why the constant efforts to debunk them?<hr></blockquote> Because it matters. I matters that we have been distracted and co-opted by a illusory promise that the heavens will be rolled back and the truth will be revealed. In the meantime these thugs are stuffing their pockets and pissing on the constitution. Some people care about these things you know.

by **Bismillah** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 1:37 pm

bvonahsen: "Occams' razor say we should give more credit to bureaucrats covering up their own incompetence" Old Occam's not in with a shout; Few know what he's really about. "If simple, then right" Is the vulgarised shite That's touted by many a lout. (Quod erat demonstrandum, too many times to list.)

by **sunny** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:50 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>In the meantime these thugs are stuffing their pockets and pissing on the constitution. Some people care about these things you know.<hr></blockquote> How dare you presume that I, or anyone else who cares about 9-11 truth, do not care about these criminals pissing on OUR Constitution. In point of fact, that is the main reason we care about the truth. These events are not mutually exclusive, but are of a piece. You could not have had the trashing of the Constitution to the extent that we've had without the "catalyzing" event of "The New Pearl Harbor." Some people can entertain two ideas at one time, you know.

by **orz** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:50 pm

An interesting point that maybe it's easy to miss if you take the tone of the first article as a personal insult (which i guess it is in some cases) is that MEMBERS OF THE 9/11 TRUTH MOVEMENT ARE DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR PUTTING JOURNALISTS OFF WRITING ABOUT 9/11! - <blockquote>Quote:<hr>which is why most journalists I know won't go near the 9/11 Truth issue more than once, if at all. On the one hand most reporters don't think it's a serious enough issue to bother with twice, and on the other hand nobody wants to deal with the torrent of abuse that comes with trying -- it's like shoving your head into a beehive. "I'd rather be poked in the eye with a sharp stick than write about that shit again," is how one columnist put it to me.<hr></blockquote> Surely we can all agree that if your mission is to spread an idea that mainstream thinkers are conditioned to assume is wacky, it would be best to convince journalists you ARE serious as intelligently and tactfully as possible, rather than insulting and harassing them via email or even in person?

The Idiocy Behind the '9/11 Truth' Movement

Re: A gaggle of conspiracy theorists

the media

Re: A gaggle of conspiracy theorists

Re: A gaggle of conspiracy theorists

Re: the media

Re: A gaggle of conspiracy theorists

Re: A gaggle of conspiracy theorists

Re: A gaggle of conspiracy theorists

PROOF that Mount Rushmore is not made of cheese.

Re: PROOF that Mount Rushmore is not made of cheese.

Re: PROOF that Mount Rushmore is not made of cheese.

Re: PROOF that Mount Rushmore is not made of cheese.

Occam Schmoccam

Re: Occam Schmoccam

hmm

Who is online