nihil wrote:
Funny how this part suddenly turned into a "small part" of the so called study.

It is a small part. You're not worth having it explained to you, but the controlled demolition theories are about a twentieth of the total weight against the 9/11 myth. Find me examples of Chomsky addressing specific evidence against the 9/11 official history if you want to continue to serve as his proxy- otherwise, I'm done with you again.

You still have some explaining (really apologizing) to do.

Antero wrote:

clocker bob wrote:Liar. History has been changed by people recognizing conspiracies against them,

Yes!

and they got that way by thinking like conspiracy theorists.

Hah, no.

They got that way by thinking like investigators, like activists, like revolutionaries.

And who is the supreme arbiter of the list of who is an investigator and who is a conspiracy theorist? You and your structuralist pals? Let me guess- probing 9/11, JFK or the Federal Reserve gets you tarred as a conspiracy theorist, right? No, thanks.

antero wrote:So shape up or fuck off. I want some political discussion that doesn't rotate around your persecution complex.

You want? Go fuck off yourself, you arrogant prick. You better turn off the Bob channel if you want your brand of political discussion, because you're not programming mine. Your panic over my posting content just reveals why you can't treat me as you should, like a troll. You aren't willing to accept tuning me out yourself, you need to kill my electricity, because every time I point out that 9/11 was an inside job and that the bankers are sucking this economy dry and that we will face a second depression in our lifetimes, I expose left dinosaurs like you as the bourgeois collaborators with the oligarchy that you are, with your pop gun message.

Your expiration date has passed. I'm baking the freshest bread on the block. If people like me don't win, it's on your heads, you and your fellow conspiracy-phobes; when your kids are asking, "where are the good jobs?", "why are the jaws of the police state clamped around my throat?", "why is Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jr. the President?", you tell them this:

"Sorry, little Johnny- warnings were all around, but Daddy didn't like the methods or the personalities of the messengers. They weren't smug triple-degreed asswipes like your father. They were conspiracy theorist rabble"

"What's a conspiracy theorist, Daddy?"

"Shhh.. not so loud, little Johnny- the telescreens might be hear you. Okay, put the FOX news on, it's time for the terrorstorm update, year 25"

You walk your walk and I'll walk mine, antero. I can live with myself if I have a big audience or no audience, and I definitely won't be losing sleep over the size of your audience. You better work on your own self-esteem if you're worried about the size of mine.

syntaxfree07 wrote:You still have some explaining (really apologizing) to do.

Don't hold your breath. I'm seriously considering only posting new material when I have it, and responding to none of the peanut gallery. I'll just watch you ankle-biters scurry around at the feet of my threads and chuckle.

clocker bob wrote:I expose left dinosaurs like you as the bourgeois collaborators with the oligarchy that you are, with your pop gun message.
Your expiration date has passed.
I'm baking the freshest bread on the block.
You better work on your own self-esteem if you're worried about the size of mine.

Bob, you should be a rapper.

That all reads like a rap.

kerble wrote: The argument here is always presented is that the US gov't was responsible for 9/11, as evidenced by things like "Loose Change" and all those fields of text-- not criminal or conspiratorial negligence. I think there'd be a lot more ground to stand on if it was presented that way. Instead we get this crazy talk about thermite cuts.

Your memory of the 9/11 posts made here is full of holes. I've posted on everything from negligence to disregarded warnings to stonewalled investigations, as well as on the physical evidence of controlled demolitions. You have chosen to focus on the MIHOP theories as a way to dispense with everything else you should be thinking about regarding gov't complicity or inaction. That history is all compiled very nicely in a movie called 9/11: Press for Truth, which is entirely about the actions of the Family Steering Committee and the work of mainstream researcher ( i.e.- not a conspiracy theorist ) Paul Thompson, author of Terror Timeline, ( published by an imprint of Harper Collins, if that adds to its credibility for you ).

Press for Truth is available on DVD at Borders or Barnes and Noble or through amazon, so you don't have to sully yourself by visiting any 'nutbag' conspiracy theorist's site to order it. It's also viewable for free on Google video. There isn't a mention of thermite or missiles at the Pentagon in the film; it's all about a very suspicious pattern ( to me ) of government ineptitude. It was made with the cooperation of dozens of family members of the victims of 9/11, so if you want to blow it off, you're really exposing the callous arrogance of most conspiracy-phobes around this subject, who can't see the trees for the forest when it comes to their aversion to opposition research on 9/11.

If you truly are looking for 'ground to stand on' for yourself regarding 9/11, and you're interested in being an activist instead of a critic of those who are active, then Press For Truth would be a smart place to begin, and that goes for anybody. Don't worry, if you claim that ground, you won't be standing anywhere near Clocker Bob and his thermite; I'm way beyond Let It Happen On Purpose. Unless you can't think for yourself about 9/11, you shouldn't worry about what I'm thinking about you from where I'm standing.

bob,

the crazy gov't was involved stuff kinda makes me take the rest of the issues you present in a less than credible way. As I mentioned earlier, there are some conspiracies that I find at least possible, those have been clouded by the other stuff.

To me, it feels as though you believe all of them, whether or not you do, which colors perception. It's a flaw in your argument style because any good or even possibly valid points or facts are often obscured by the glut of other "information" that , to me, is completely incredulous.

besides, I'm not a conspiracy-phobe. I find them exciting. I just don't find the majority of them believable.



Faiz

Most people are not willing to accept the idea of any alternate theory, and I think that's a problem. Conspiracism as a worldview is not a good one to have, but it's naive to act like people that inherit great national or financial power would be above killing and creating false stories to protect it. The problem I have is when y'all act like the existence of other theories over events that have some pretty fucking huge questions around them is this thing to be ground into the floor at any sight of it. Most of you are just accepting the official story and condemning any other view without even looking at them, because you don't like conspiracy theorists. It's good to try and learn about something before you attack it. When you read some good, confirmed information about 9/11 that doesn't make the media, without a bias in your mind, I think it's hard not to come away believing the government at very best knew and shielded those involved and at worst took part in it. Really, lay off bob.

Andrew L. wrote:
Here are two of the things I find interesting about conspiracy theories:

1. They are a distinctly American phenomenon, an American product. They don't flourish anywhere else.

Huh? Maybe more conspiracy theories are born in the US, but if you check the polls taken overseas ( especially throughout Europe ) that ask respondents their attitudes towards US government complicity with the 9/11 attacks, the percentages are higher than in the US. Some of the best work on 9/11 Truth has been done by Germans, Brits, and the French- one French book on CIA ties to al Qaeda and bin Laden ( Forbidden Truth, by Brisard and Dasquie )is about the best source on that subject.

andrew l wrote:2. In contradistinction to other accounts of nefarious, undemocratic power (CIA operations in Latin America, etc), conspiracy theories obsess over self-directed acts: bad things Americans (acting in foreign interests) do to America.

Except when we don't. More of your lies that seek to evict conspiracy theorists from the left you think you own. The overlap between the anti-war protestors and the 9/11 Truth crowd is substantial- in fact, I've never read anything by a 9/11 researcher that doesn't bemoan the wars that the fake attacks enabled, or anyone in 9/11 Truth who can't speak just as fervently about the illegalities of the military's actions overseas and the lives lost because of the stupid idiots in the US who provide the warmongers with their political capital.

kerble wrote:
besides, I'm not a conspiracy-phobe. I find them exciting. I just don't find the majority of them believable.

Faiz

That's a sound position- if you're not dismissing theories before examining them, that is ( and once again, while I may have an opinion about how well you have examined them, I am a lone voice that you can only be offended by if you let me offend you )

kerble wrote:it feels as though you believe all of them, whether or not you do, which colors perception.

I don't quite know what you mean by "you seem to believe all of them", since I concentrate on three here almost exclusively: 9/11, the Federal Reserve, and the unhealthy influence of Israel over US policies. I have posted some on JFK, but not a whole lot, and I don't think I've done much posting on the UFO subject, either. What else? Illuminati? The masons? Vatican? I hardly touch those theories, because I'm not up to speed on them and don't expect to have time to get there.

I don't understand why what I believe has any bearing on what you believe. I'm the most determined poster on conspiracy theories on the forum, but I'm not offering a curriculum- I don't control the directions these threads take ( though I try ). You or El Protoolio could write posts advancing 9/11 theories less extreme than mine; I won't necessarily agree, we might squabble, but it's just opinion vs. opinion in the end. I think if you read the 9/11 threads before I destroyed my contributions, you would see that several posters who were skeptical of my theories were treated just fine, and that was because they were able to disagree without a bunch of smartass insults.

kerble wrote:It's a flaw in your argument style because any good or even possibly valid points or facts are often obscured by the glut of other "information" that , to me, is completely incredulous.

So there's a flaw in my argument style. How does that flaw infringe upon your freedom to argue against me, ignore me, or to make your case exactly as you see fit? I can't be expected to tailor my posts for my imaginary audience- I post as a release, not to build a coalition. That's why, as passionately as I believe in 9/11 Truth, I do very little work from inside the organizations, because I don't want to 'sell' my ideas in a way that feels like a compomise to the uninitiated.