Premier Rock Forum

gio wrote:ok, fucker: maybe I wouldn't be blown the fuck away if they found evidence of controlled demolotion (no pun intended). No evidence of the sort has been reported

Yes, that's correct- other than all the videos and audio tapes and witnesses, no evidence of the sort has been reported. Inspector gio on the case again.

gio wrote:i got a conspiracy theory for ya: dylan avery and co are conspiring to dupe millions of internet surfers and maybe even some people higher up to believe their story, so they gain notoriety and fame. Wait, look, they've suceeded: they are notorious and famous. They have the limelight for an audience of millions. Ride it out now, boys. Smile and enjoy it. I'll be interested to see what y'all are up to ten years from now.

God, you're goofy. You still have not got your head around the fact that 9/11 truth began on 9/12/01. It existed years before Loose Change, and it will exist years after Loose Change. Loose change could evaporate tomorrow and nothing would change. Gio, since you're afraid to watch LC, this may not make sense to you, but Avery and Bermas took everything they used off the internet. It was all there first. They didn't write the 9/11 conspiracy theories. They're compilers. So the LC guys can be the most craven opportunists we've ever met, and it would not matter a whit to the credibility of the theories themselves. Your incessant attacks on the LC guys' personalities or motives are a sideshow. They do not mean a flea on the ass of 9/11 truth. What they are is proof that you are a brainwashed foot soldier in the disinformation campain against 9/11 truth- you're so fouled up in your logic that the LC guys have got you inventing conspiracy theories to explain them! Hah, ha... man, you are so twisted.

popular mechanic's 9-11 debunking site wrote:Flight 77 Debris
CLAIM: Conspiracy theorists insist there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon.

There is no unity position by conspiracy theorists on the pentagon, first of all. The fact that you think that there is just proves even more what a biased douche you are. There is also not a video showing the plane approaching the pentagon, not after five years. That's why I personally feel very comfortable withholding judgement until I see one. Thought you were a big fan of skepticism, gio? Are you skeptical about the unavailability of pentagon video thus far?

clocker bob wrote:What a Grade A pompous ivory tower academic douchebag statement. Yeah, antero, like not a single ounce of your dreamed-about 'solidly-researched' account of the CIA killing JFK wasn't in a conspiracy theorist's book first. You just came to the conclusion that Oswald might have been a patsy all on your own in some pop culture vacuum that you have been living in your entire life- is that your story? So fucking lame. Whatever solidly-researched account of that assassination that you think you could dream up, it would have a bibliography fifty pages long featuring books by Mark Lane and Fletcher Prouty and Jim Garrison and Jim Marrs, and if it didn't have such a bibliography, you'd be a rank plagiarist.

I neither have such a story, nor am I sure if one could be created; I am, however, pretty damn sure that it would need more interesting evidence than various folks have been tossing around for decades.

By the by, isn't "ivory tower academic" usually an ad-hominem attack directed at those lacking experience in, ah, praxis, the definitional antonym of theory? I mean, am I in the wrong tower or what?

Any poop on the subject ever tossed by the controlled media there, antero? Simple question, you jerk off- if you think that a solidly-researched account of the CIA killing JFK is needed, then you think that the CIA killed JFK then, right?

No. I don't actually know who killed JFK - CIA? Mafia? Aliens? It doesn't matter. An empirical, evidence-based, airtight case that Oswald was framed and the actual shooters were Bigfoot and a time-travelling Billy Corgan would be just as acceptable for my example.

The point is that you and your ilk have shat in the well so many times that nobody'll drink. You could have a fucking signed confession from Bigfoot and people would ignore it.

Well then, if the official history still states that it was Oswald working alone, then who has been lying to you more: the conspiracy theorists, or the protectors of the false history??

Answer that question, and then tell me why you dare to bitch more about conspiracy theorists than about those covering up that crime?

Well, see, this is why: look at your own rhetoric! "Protectors of the false history"? It's ludicrous to talk about the possibility of a conspiracy with someone whose religion mandates that such a conspiracy exist.

Why bitch more about conspiracy theorists than those concealing potential conspiracies? Conspiracy theorists are the ones concealing conspiracies by letting trash, noise, distortion, idiocy, apophenia, shitty argumentation, paranoia, lazy research, prefabricated assumptions, and fixed frameworks into their accounts. Lies are one thing, lies can be penetrated and contradicted and seen through. Conspiracy theory as such is noise, and, by opening itself to anything that fits in its assumed framework, it devalues the debate, undermines attempts to get at the truth, conceals accurate information beneath mountains of bad signal, and drives good empirical and historical research away from its topics.

Here's a conspiracy theory for you: I am of the opinion that those running actual conspiracies (of money, silence, torture, overthrow, imperialistic power, etc.) are major supporters of conspiracy theory and conspiracy theorists. Why? Because if I was involved in a conspiracy, the first thing I'd do would be to leak an ounce of truth and a pound of lies to various conspiracy theorists. An ounce of truth to get them salivating, and then the pound of lies would be aggressively adopted and easily dismissed by my media representatives and all rational individuals, who would make the mistake of losing the ounce of truth as well; having poisoned the debate, the question would never arise for years, as the ounce of truth would have so much shit glommed on it that nobody would be willing to sniff it out. I could count on conspiracy theorists to fragment investigation by vehemently attacking those who want better information or want to cut past the pound of lies; you do it all the time, after all. Soon enough my real conspiracy would be masked under its own image.

So, fuck conspiracy theory. It's not about exploration or skepticism, it's about assumption and gullibility.

clocker bob wrote:Avery and Bermas took everything they used off the internet. It was all there first. They didn't write the 9/11 conspiracy theories. They're compilers.

Directly ties to what I said about letting noise into the signal.

Earwicker wrote:

gio wrote:Bob, you didn't answer my question about being in a documentary I want to make about conspiracy theorists.

This does sound interesting I've wanted to do something on the subject myself and will at some point in the future, finance permitting.

But I have to ask. It sounds like you are approaching the Conspiracy Theorist not as a person who insists upon an unpopular stance but as if they are someone clearly wrong or insane who insist upon unpopular stances despite everyone else knowing they are somehow wrong.

In other words you are approaching your subject with a bias which is the reason I don't think Loose Change has much credibility - not because they were originally going to make a fiction film, I really don't see what difference that should make at all. btw - when you say 'fiction film' do you mean 'dramatisation'?

I also think your refusal to spend any time on studying conspiracy theories would do a disservice to your documentary (given the stated subject) and reveals it to be more of a raspberry blowing exercise than a legitimate study of the psychology of a conspiracy theorist (as if there is only one type of person who is a conspiracy theorist)

Wouldn't that be like doing a documentary on veterans of the Vietnam War but not being bothered to study the war?

Maybe you should do a fiction film instead.

The more I've read this thread the more interested I have become in the psychology of people who automatically refuse to accept the possibility that any conspiracy theory might be on to something.

It just seems a little odd to me.

You do accept that people conspire against others don't you all? Or in your world is everyone open and honest about all of their dealings and the motivations behind them?

I accept that people have agendas, and they are certainly not always in the open. I am curious about point at which these agendas are defined as "conspiracies," and how different individuals (conspiracy theorists, conspiracy theory detractors) might place these definitions.

well, if I make it, you can see it and tell me what you think. Maybe it will be shit. Maybe it will be illuminating.

You are absolutely right, though, I would have to shed my bias, or at least take it out of the equation. I have a bias, I am more than willing to admit that. But I don't

refuse to accept the possibility that any conspiracy theory might be on to something

. Maybe one out of a thousand is on to something. That's a moot point when it comes to my interest.

I would also have to do some real research, which I haven't done. I have done cursory internet research. I have engaged in a meaningless flame war on an internet message board. None of this counts.

In truth, I know almost nothing about conspiracy theories. I have a bias, and I write them off. I am in that camp. Maybe doing research for the film would make me more conscientious to the goals of the theorists. I would definitely have to table my "you're wasting your time" argument. So maybe I won't be able to do that, and the film will never be made. I guess we'll see.

Maybe the film will be a personal one (a la Sherman's March) about my exploration of my own biases towards conspiracy theories!

clocker bob wrote:

gio wrote:ok, fucker: maybe I wouldn't be blown the fuck away if they found evidence of controlled demolotion (no pun intended). No evidence of the sort has been reported

Yes, that's correct- other than all the videos and audio tapes and witnesses, no evidence of the sort has been reported. Inspector gio on the case again.

Ok bob, you've called me on my bias and lack of research. Fair enough. Time to do some research.

1. Is there a report of material evidence of substances used in controlled demolition?
2. Please provide a link to the tapes and videos and witness reports as well.

God, you're goofy. You still have not got your head around the fact that 9/11 truth began on 9/12/01.

Not true. I just said I think Loose Change is bullshit. I said that about four times.

It existed years before Loose Change, and it will exist years after Loose Change. Loose change could evaporate tomorrow and nothing would change.

I was not aware of this untill I went to 911truth.com yesterday. It doesn't change my opinion that Loose Change is bullshit.

Gio, since you're afraid to watch LC, this may not make sense to you,

Nice ad homimen conjecture. there is a clear line between "afraid" and "refusing because I think it will be stupid, based on hundreds of posts on this message board and what I have read on wikipedia" But maybe i will watch it. I have a good notion that it will confirm my hypothesis.

but Avery and Bermas took everything they used off the internet. It was all there first. They didn't write the 9/11 conspiracy theories. They're compilers. So the LC guys can be the most craven opportunists we've ever met, and it would not matter a whit to the credibility of the theories themselves.

Ok, so maybe we agree on certain fronts of the "LC is bullshit" claim. interesting. I thought you were defending LC yesterday.

Your incessant attacks on the LC guys' personalities or motives are a sideshow.

Duh. But it's fun.

They do not mean a flea on the ass of 9/11 truth.

So we agree, then: LC is bullshit.

What they are is proof that you are a brainwashed foot soldier in the disinformation campain against 9/11 truth- you're so fouled up in your logic that the LC guys have got you inventing conspiracy theories to explain them! Hah, ha... man, you are so twisted.

What do you know... I'm a foot soldier on a campaign! Holy shit! Bob, that's news to me. I have not posted a literal blanket statement about "9/11 Truth" as a movement. Find such a quote from me. Go ahead.

popular mechanic's 9-11 debunking site wrote:Flight 77 Debris
CLAIM: Conspiracy theorists insist there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon.

There is no unity position by conspiracy theorists on the pentagon, first of all.

ok. I don't know about "unity positions" in conspiracy theory. But I do know there was a conspiracy website in the UK that was questioning the claim that a plane flew into the pentagon.

The fact that you think that there is just proves even more what a biased douche you are.

Sweet, another ad hominem insult. Thanks bob, you're really feeding your credibility with these. Keep stacking 'em up.

There is also not a video showing the plane approaching the pentagon, not after five years.

But there was a firsthand report of plane wreckage stuck in the side o the building, and pieces of the bodies of dead civilians from the flight. Oh, wait, I guess we can ignore that EVIDENCE for the question of "why is there no video footage of the collision?? We have reason to doubt the truth here!"

So, that's a reasonable doubt? In lieu of the first hand report I cited? Nope.

That's why I personally feel very comfortable withholding judgement until I see one. Thought you were a big fan of skepticism, gio? Are you skeptical about the unavailability of pentagon video thus far?

I just wrote:that's a reasonable doubt? In lieu of the first hand report I cited? Nope.

gio wrote:well, if I make it, you can see it and tell me what you think. Maybe it will be shit. Maybe it will be illuminating.

And I should have said, through my mist of negativity, and as a fellow film maker, that despite anything I said, good luck and I hope it all goes well.

Being in the same game I know how tough it is to get anything off the ground and if we brethren can't support each other then who the hell else is going to?

Earwicker wrote:

gio wrote:well, if I make it, you can see it and tell me what you think. Maybe it will be shit. Maybe it will be illuminating.

And I should have said, through my mist of negativity, and as a fellow film maker, that despite anything I said, good luck and I hope it all goes well.

Being in the same game I know how tough it is to get anything off the ground and if we brethren can't support each other then who the hell else is going to?

Thanks. Yeah, I agree.

Truth of the matter is that you will always encounter differences of opinion... and opinions can change, so I try to stay open to that. I actually never gave conspiracy much of a thought until yesterday.

Who knows; maybe we'll both make films on the topic, and they'll explore different perspectives! we can screen 'em together.

clocker bob wrote:

gramsci wrote:Have you even been to South America, let alone out of your bedroom?

oh, and we accept pesos.

Sorry, no- my trust fund ran out. Send me a plane ticket.

Trust fund ran out? Bummer you should do what I do, work your ass off on a couple of jobs so you can save money to flight out there. Actually you can head down to Venezuela and help out on one of their programmes. They have special ones for gringos that are afraid to get their hands dirty.

Chump.

Gramsci wrote:

You have nothing to say any more about the discussion you started, do you? You know, the one where you said that there are no conspiracy theories in Chomsky's books, and everything he wrote about Latin America was admitted to by our government and plastered all over the evening news in real time?

Smart move to dump that idiotic misstep of yours into the memory hole, the sooner the better. You're on more solid ground boasting about your work ethic. I can't prove you wrong on that, unlike many other things.

gio wrote:Ok bob, you've called me on my bias and lack of research. Fair enough. Time to do some research.

I'll be replying to this from work on saturday- I just got off work after 12 hours. Letting you know I'm not ducking this.