A taste of our own medicine...perhaps??

mjd1982 said:

Excuse me. So you favour the goal of stopping the spread of my beliefs. You still favour a goal, collectively, and are thus a movement. This was incredibly easy to understand.

The fact that you, collectively, sit their scratching your noggins asking each other "Are we a movement??... I dunno... This is a really interesting argument!" illustrates merely that you are indeed, a rather obtuse one.

Click to expand...

I don't see the debunkers as part of a movement. All I see are rational people pointing out the SEVERE flaws in the 9/11 "Truth" Movement. Just regular people who know better than to fall for creepy music, deception, distortion of facts, and flat out lies. Not to mention, rationalists have been around for a very long time. Additionally, so have CTs. I see the 9/11 "Truth" movement as just another sorry group of people caught up in CT garbage and the rationalists doing what they have been doing best for so long, making the CFs look like fools.

This reminds me of the latter days of the Chemtrail hoax.

Tired of being called “Chemmies,” the hoax participants started referring to themselves as “Chemtrail Activists.” Eventually the term chemtrail itself was replaced by certain promoters by the term “aerosol activities” or some such nonsense.

Dr Harry Rein said:

The official account actually is a conspiracy theory (19 Arab terrorists executing a plan conceived, planned and financed by Al Qaeda). However, I agree with you that by labeling the account that we believe is the most obviously logical explanation for the events of Sep 11, they are trying to trivialize our belief, and make there theory appear as an equally plausible alternative explanation.



. . .

Click to expand...

mjd1982 said:

This sounds like a conspiracy theory to me...

Click to expand...

A "conspiracy theory" is not equivalent to a "theory which contains a conspiracy therein".

A "conspiracy theory" is a very specific thing. Definitions include, but are not limited to

Quote:
A conspiracy theory attempts to explain the ultimate cause of an event or chain of events (usually political, social, or historical events) as a secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert alliance of powerful or influential people or organizations. Many conspiracy theories claim that major events in history have been dominated by conspirators who manipulate political happenings from behind the scenes.
The first recorded use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" dates back to an economics article in the 1920s, but it was only in the 1960s that it entered popular usage. It entered the supplement to the Oxford English Dictionary as late as 1997. [1]
The term "conspiracy theory" is used by mainstream scholars and in popular culture to identify a type of folklore similar to an urban legend, especially an explanatory narrative which is constructed with particular methodological flaws.[2] The term is also used pejoratively to dismiss claims that are alleged by critics to be misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish, irrational, or otherwise unworthy of serious consideration. For example "Conspiracy nut" and "conspiracy theorist" are used as pejorative terms. Some whose theories or speculations are labeled a "conspiracy theory" reject the term as prejudicial.
The term "conspiracy theory" may be a neutral descriptor for any conspiracy claim. However, conspiracy theory is also used to indicate a narrative genre that includes a broad selection of (not necessarily related) arguments for the existence of grand conspiracies, any of which might have far-reaching social and political implications if true.
Whether or not a particular conspiracy allegation may be impartially or neutrally labeled a conspiracy theory is subject to some controversy. Conspiracy theory has become a highly charged political term, and the broad critique of 'conspiracy theorists' by academics, politicians, psychologists, and the media cuts across traditional left-right political lines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory


Quote:
Main Entry: conspiracy theory
Function: noun
: a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators
- conspiracy theorist noun
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conspiracy%20theory


Quote:
conspiracy theory
- belief that event is plot: a belief that a particular event is the result of a secret plot rather than the actions of an individual person or chance

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpag...spiracy+theory

This is different from a theory (in the scientific sense) that contains a conspiracy

Quote:
Conspiracy*
Conspiracy, in law, agreement between persons to do something illegal or criminal. In this offense, the mere agreement of the conspirators is...
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpag...x?q=conspiracy

Quote:

Main Entry: con·spir·a·cy
Pronunciation: k&n-'spir-&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Middle English conspiracie, from Latin conspirare
1 : the act of conspiring together
2 a : an agreement among conspirators b : a group of conspirators
synonym see [SIZE=-1]PLOT[/SIZE]
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conspiracy


Quote:
In the criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more natural persons to break the law at some time in the future, and, in some cases, with at least one overt act in furtherance of that agreement. There is no limit on the number participating in the conspiracy and, in most countries, no requirement that any steps have been taken to put the plan into effect (compare attempts which require proximity to the full offence). For the purposes of concurrence, the actus reus is a continuing one and parties may join "the plot" later and incur joint liability and conspiracy can be charged where the co-conspirators have been acquitted and/or cannot be traced. Finally, repentance by one or more parties does not affect liability but may reduce their sentence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_%28crime%29

To equate the two terms is equivocation.

Childlike Empress said:

The first and only (before opening this thread) time i've heard that term was this weekend when i watched the hardfire call-in show. Pat of SLC called in and thanked Gravy for being an inspiration for the "Debunking Movement". Mark and Ron didn't object. I really had to laugh out loud.

Click to expand...

I guess he did, I didn't pick up on it. I don't think he meant it literally, as an organized movement. I disagree with that expression nevertheless.

Alferd_Packer said:

This reminds me of the latter days of the Chemtrail hoax.

Tired of being called “Chemmies,” the hoax participants started referring to themselves as “Chemtrail Activists.” Eventually the term chemtrail itself was replaced by certain promoters by the term “aerosol activities” or some such nonsense.

Click to expand...

Haha.

I didn't know that the chemtrails crowd had "dissipated" (pun intended...lol.)

Check out our resident believer "Lyte Trip" on his Myspace page.

It seems that the nonsense is still in full swing...

mjd1982 said:

Excuse me. So you favour the goal of stopping the spread of my beliefs. You still favour a goal, collectively, and are thus a movement. This was incredibly easy to understand.

The fact that you, collectively, sit their scratching your noggins asking each other "Are we a movement??... I dunno... This is a really interesting argument!" illustrates merely that you are indeed, a rather obtuse one.

Click to expand...

Who wants to stop you spreading junk? Your beliefs are that, if you had fact you would have something. But you have zero facts to support your beliefs. The goal is to show that you have no facts, but you do that yourself.

9/11 truth is a false movement dealing in lies and false information.

mjd1982 said:

Excuse me. So you favour the goal of stopping the spread of my beliefs. You still favour a goal, collectively, and are thus a movement. This was incredibly easy to understand.

The fact that you, collectively, sit their scratching your noggins asking each other "Are we a movement??... I dunno... This is a really interesting argument!" illustrates merely that you are indeed, a rather obtuse one.

Click to expand...

Absolutely Non-Stupid Seeker of Truth -

You said "Excuse me", thank you for being both non-stupid and polite.

I, for one, do decidedly favor the noble goal of stoppage of your spreading bas-reliefs. I'm sorry but that's the way it is. For, what is sculpture? Yea, 'tis art. And art has a place of enshrinement and focus, bravely earned via cave paintings and those Frescas at the Loover.

Too much is being spread, too quickly. Let's leave the bas-reliefs alone, shan't we? Bas-reliefs should never be moved. Enshrinement and admissions fees, baby.

mjd1982 said:

Get over it. Your movement is irreparably thick, and overwhelmingly dangerous. Stop it.

Click to expand...

Your movement is clever enough to have figured out that your movement can obey the letter of the JREF forum rules, while still spewing what very much resembles personal attacks, by presenting them as being directed at "your movement." Congratulations to your movement.

However, by the same token, my movement can point out that your movement is ignorant, immature, noncreative to an almost pathological degree, incapable of productive work, arrogantly contemptuous of expertise (perhaps because your movement is understandably envious of those who have the capability to actually acquire expertise), sociopathic in its willingness to exploit a tragedy for its personal self-aggrandizement and financial gain, thuggish in its response to reasoned opposition (thus tending to find itself at a loss once dispute has proceeded beyond the point where the average playground bully proceeds to trump all opposing argument with his fists), and lazy on every level especially intellectually. Your movement revels in its own fecklessness, knowing that as long as its goals pit it against an enemy that's all-powerful and imaginary it will never lack an excuse for failure. Your movement is a font of disappointment and sorrow for your movement's parents and a badge of shame to your movement's teachers. Your movement is obviously unappealing to its opposite-gender peers (who are conspicuous by their near-total absence from your movement) and therefore is left to steep itself in the self-destructive passions of mateless young males. This makes your movement dangerous, but not in the way it likes to think of itself as. It is no threat whatsoever to its declared enemies (who, after all, are all-powerful and imaginary), but its lack of critical thinking skills make it a tool controllable by emotion, ready to be incited to tragic atrocity by whoever comes up with a good enough story. Your movement is not capable of seeing nineteen young Islamic fundamentalist murderers as the enemies who dealt it a real blow six years ago, because when it looks at them it sees only a reflection of itself.

So, mjd, are you enjoying this exercise in pointing out the shortcomings we perceive in one another's movements? Should we continue?

Respectfully,
Myriad

mjd1982 said:

1. There is a very simple way to answer that question. Does the school teacher favour the goal of stopping illiteracy? If this is the case, then, by the dictionary definition, he/she will be part of the literacy movement. It is that simple, please dont make me have to tell u again.

2. Jeezus.... Ok, well other than the obvious "movement" ignorance, about which I may leave you scratching your head with your friends, why don;t you answer #28/#41. You would be the first of your ilk to do so....

Click to expand...

Do you mean answer it?..Or answer it to your satisfaction?

I dont think we should really concern ourselves with what the truthers decide to call us. Sure they are going to try every tactic to discredit us and make us sound not as good.

I think the main point for us, the debunkers, in my opinion anyways, is to put CTs in perspective. We will never convince the "hardcore" CTs or anyone who is really deeply involved, it just wont happen. What we need to be here to do is for people, especially for the younger generation who may actually need to research 9/11 as they were too young to remember and in a few years not even born, is give them a place to actually research 9/11. This is why I debunk and run my own forum. I remember as a kid doing something with the moon landing, somehow I came across JFK, and I wanted to know how he died. Well, searching the primitive internet about how JFK died, even now, is nearly impossible to get an accurate portrayal of the event. This is what my fear of 9/11 will be. The younger generation when searching for "9/11", will get a lot of misleading and or incorrect information.

Miss Anthrope said:

I've split the WTC 7 and other derails over to AAH due to a high volume of reports for OT posts. Anyone wishing to rehash WTC 7 can certainly find another thread for it. Remember rule 11, and, be nice

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Miss Anthrope

Click to expand...

Thank God!

tsire said:

I dont think we should really concern ourselves with what the truthers decide to call us. Sure they are going to try every tactic to discredit us and make us sound not as good.

I think the main point for us, the debunkers, in my opinion anyways, is to put CTs in perspective. We will never convince the "hardcore" CTs or anyone who is really deeply involved, it just wont happen. What we need to be here to do is for people, especially for the younger generation who may actually need to research 9/11 as they were too young to remember and in a few years not even born, is give them a place to actually research 9/11. This is why I debunk and run my own forum. I remember as a kid doing something with the moon landing, somehow I came across JFK, and I wanted to know how he died. Well, searching the primitive internet about how JFK died, even now, is nearly impossible to get an accurate portrayal of the event. This is what my fear of 9/11 will be. The younger generation when searching for "9/11", will get a lot of misleading and or incorrect information.

Click to expand...

Amen.

mjd1982 said:

Given that you are diffusely organised, you are people, and you favour the goal of spreading your beliefs, you are thus a "movement". "The Debunking Movement" is the suitable epithet.

Let's hear no more quibbles about this please.

Click to expand...

I am hardly attempting to "spread a belief," for my part. I can't speak for all the opthers on this board, of course.

What I am trying to do is to stop the disemeniaton of dangerous lies and misconceptions which I feel are often posited for nefarious, perhaps outrightly malicious, reasons.

I make no apology for suggesting that there is a large segment of the TM who are lacking in maturity and intelligence. It is a simple fact, supportable by the existance of Dylan and his teenage drooling groupies. He showed himself in his film to be an utterly incompetant researcher by such glaring mistakes as stating falsely that Flt 77 went through nine feet of concrete. That is not even good journalism. He's a charlatan.

But, worse, he may be a malicious charlatan. He draws heavily on known Nazi apologists for his information. That is not just ignorant, it is dangerous, because it gives too much credence to enemies of reason. And I do not even give them the benefit ofthe stopped clock maxim. They lie all the time, and not for benign reasons.

The woo surrounding 9/11 seems attractive to young minds looking for a purpose. If it's dark, it is fascinating.

Loose Change is serving the same purpose for today's white nationalists that rock concerts served in the recruiting schemes of the 80s. It is to recruit useful idiots to augment their own paltry numbers.

I do not care what mantle they may put on, they are wrong, and it is the duty of anyone sworn as I am to defend and preserve our constitutional government to stop the white nationalists. As long as the blight on humanity that was Nazism is still limping along, lurking in the shadows, waiting for an opening like Faust's black poodle, reasoning people must be ready to slam the door in its face and proclaim, for the rest of history:"Nie wieder!"

I think this could be a propitious moment to start a 'Real Truth Movement'.

We can have our "911 was an outside job (Unless someone provides evidence to the contrary)" T-Shirts, our "Read the NIST Report, Dummy" bumper stickers and our "Trained Arab Pilots Could've Dun It" tatoos.

We can re-enact the 911 Commission Report on DVD for $25.00 per copy (or $5000 if you want it live in the comfort of your own home ) and, best of all, we can spend interminable hours online pretending that the world knows we exist. Well, even more hours than we do already.

I believe this is a propitious time for a public declaration of 'truth'. Perhaps we could call it the "Program for a New Truthy Century"? We must affect change and, short of Avery actually releasing his opus to be slaughtered in the mainstream media, we must move now, while the time is propitious, to take back 'the truth' and establish, once and for all, that we skeptics, masters of the debunk, are the only people truly fit to lead, and all opposition must be crushed, ruthlessly, in furtherance of our aims to make the world a more skeptical place........

....though I could be wrong about this and am open to well thought out counter arguments.

mjd1982 said:

Thus, I repeat my assertion. You are a movement, and one that is incredibly obtuse. This thread illustrates it better than I could have dreamed, in fact.

Click to expand...

I think this sums up why we do it. People like this who spread lies and distortions with no thought for the consequences of their actions.

You come to boards as a lurker you read some of the stuff posted by the TM and you see that it is lies. You stomach this for a while and eventually you see something that really annoys you to the point that you have to join to point out the disgusting behaviour of the TM. The thing that got me started was people posting blatant falsehoods about aircraft, as an ex aircraft technician I had the know how to see through the bunk and put across the real facts.

At this point you try to have a reasoned and rational debate without attacking the poster and sticking to the points made.

You then see the poster run away, change tack when confronted with facts that disprove them, ignore and handwave at pertinent posts and questions then finally start the abuse like poor little mjd has to resort to.

Eventually you will at some point bite back at them, at which point they will usually claim the pwn you

I do not spread anything, I try to stop the spread of lies to people who could possibly be fooled by them. I do not care about converting the majority of the TM cause the fact they have been sucked in and are spreading the lies without even trying to look at both sides to get a proper perspective makes me sick.

mjd1982 said:

<snip>
and you favour the goal of spreading your beliefs,
<snip>

Click to expand...

I do not have the gaol of spreading my beliefs. I do try to share my knowledge relevant to a discussion.

What I believe may well be based on my knowledge, but my knowledge is not based on my belief.

My knowledge and experience is primarily on the behaviour of fire in buildings. I note that those who I believe are conspiracy fantacists usually do not understand this behaviour. Thus my belief that they are conspiracy fantacists is based on my knowledge that they are wrong about something I do know about. But, this belief does not change the knowledge that I try to share.

Dave

ElMondoHummus said:

Well, shoot, this is definitely a worthy topic, but unfortunately we have a temporary derailment into the difference between the denotative meeting of a definition and the practical, in-spirit achievement of such. But regardless of whether we're a movement in that we meet the "diffuse organization" criteria and favor some sort of common goal, or that we mirror (or fail to mirror) others in true organization, common actions, and fervor - a difference that ultimately does not matter as anything other than a rhetorical point - what truly matters is that we adhere to skeptical principles and logic and rational thought. That matters more than any label others choose to stick on us, whether deserved or not.

Anyway, trivialization. Again, this is something to think about. I started by thinking of all the times I've ridiculed truthers or the arguments, and that those incidents are not really events to be proud of, but I honestly don't know if I can call that "trivialization". It's a different sort of fault that I and others commit by resorting to ridicule, but I'm not sure I can apply the word "trivialize" to it. "Disdain", yes; there are plenty of examples here of sardonic posts. "Mock", yes, that's an honest characterization of some of my arguments, and of many others. But I just can't think of any times right now where I've reduced or treated as unimportant any of this subject, or any of the conspiracy fantasists arguments. I think the closest anyone's come - not me, I tend to avoid discussion of this topic - is the ridicule by some of Dylan Avery's lack of career opportunities outside of Loose Change. That, to me, is an unfair commentary, given the difficulty of entering the filmmaking profession in general, and given that it really only does take one successful work to be considered a member of that profession, but I've seen the insult made. There's plenty of criticism to be made of Loose Change as a work, and I don't think there's any need for insult-by-reduction of the filmmakers' professional statures.

I'm starting to ramble... TAM, are there any incidents or posts that lead you to thinking about this topic? I know from your OP that you started on this due to the terminology that's more frequently being applied, but(assuming I'm not reading too much into this), it seems to me that the labels were more the tipping point in your thesis, rather than the origin of it. Correct me if I'm wrong in thinking that, but are there other incidents leading you to the self-reflection?

Click to expand...

Childlike Empress said:

The first time i've heard (and used) that term was in 2002.

The first and only (before opening this thread) time i've heard that term was this weekend when i watched the hardfire call-in show. Pat of SLC called in and thanked Gravy for being an inspiration for the "Debunking Movement". Mark and Ron didn't object. I really had to laugh out loud.

Click to expand...

The OCT has been around for longer, no doubt. The "Debunking movement" line I have seen on SLC Blog and a few of the truth sites I lurk on, say the last 2-3 months or so...a more recent phenomenon. Perhaps CLE should surf a little more, or perhaps focus on the meat of the topic rather than the minutia (also another common tactic).

ElMondo:

I tend to get self-reflective every 2-3 months or so, usually after I have either (A) had some time away from the forum (I have been on only a few times in the last few days), or (B) after I have seen myself get unduly angry or mean with another poster (usually a truth advocate).

On this occasion it was the former. When I came online last evening I was reading mjd's posts, and as I have seen several times over the last few months, I saw him using the "Debunking Movement" line. Along with some of his other tactics, it caused me to reflect on the "tactics" both sides use, and how annoyed some were becoming with the usage of certain terms here at JREF. I then realized that really, we MIGHT be getting upset at getting a taste of our own medicine. Of course, all of this is my own personal opinion, not necessarily thoughts of the "Debunking Movement" as a whole....lol

TAM

uk_dave said:

I think this could be a propitious moment to start a 'Real Truth Movement'.

We can have our "911 was an outside job (Unless someone provides evidence to the contrary)" T-Shirts, our "Read the NIST Report, Dummy" bumper stickers and our "Trained Arab Pilots Could've Dun It" tatoos.

We can re-enact the 911 Commission Report on DVD for $25.00 per copy (or $5000 if you want it live in the comfort of your own home ) and, best of all, we can spend interminable hours online pretending that the world knows we exist. Well, even more hours than we do already.

I believe this is a propitious time for a public declaration of 'truth'. Perhaps we could call it the "Program for a New Truthy Century"? We must affect change and, short of Avery actually releasing his opus to be slaughtered in the mainstream media, we must move now, while the time is propitious, to take back 'the truth' and establish, once and for all, that we skeptics, masters of the debunk, are the only people truly fit to lead, and all opposition must be crushed, ruthlessly, in furtherance of our aims to make the world a more skeptical place........

....though I could be wrong about this and am open to well thought out counter arguments.

Click to expand...

Absolutely fantastic post...well done.

TAM

T.A.M. said:

I have been noticing as of late, perhaps the last 6-8 months, that the truthers have begun to label certain aspects of the "other side".

examples:

1. The "official" account is now referred to as the "Official Conspiracy Theory"
2. Debunkers here are now referred to as part of the "Debunking Movement"

My first thoughts on this was "so what", but now I am seeing it for what it is, which is an attempt to try and depreciate the effort many of us make here. The official account is referred to as a CT because they know how much contempt we have for CT's as a whole. Our mocking of the "truth movement" has resulted in them labeling what we do as the "Debunking Movement".

As to the motive behind this, the obvious one is anger at us for what we do. We are the thorn in their side, and they know it. It is the reason why the term "JREFer" has become a curse word on truth sites.

But then there is, what I think, a more subtle reason. I think the truthers are trying to trivialize our efforts, so they can rationalize us away, like they do with so many other things. It is much harder for them to accept that their most ardent and adamant opponents on the 9/11 issue are a bunch of educated, ordinary people with NO REWARD, and honesty and truth as their only motives. Much easier, is to try and label us as a group of extremists, who will tolerate only one version of the truth, apologists for the Neocons, etc....

And then, my final thoughts, are concerning how we in fact, treat them the same way. Do we do so for the same reasons? When we call them "truthers" or "Twoofers" or "Denialists", when we call them Kooks, are we doing so to trivialize them? If we do, why do we trivialize them and their cause...is it because it is stupid and trivial? Is it because it is easier to trivialize it than confront it? I dunno?

They are, in fact, doing to us, exactly what a lot of us have done to them. Do we deserve it? I dunno.

What do you think??

TAM

Click to expand...

A very smart post. This is something I think about a lot, actually.

These words - shortcuts like the ones you mention...also, add on other words that get typed far more often then they get spoken (eg, virulent, repugnant, liar). These words are used as a sales tool, wittingly or (usually) not. The phrase "conspiracy Liars" will no doubt make a fence sitter think twice before buying into a CT, which is perhaps why the phrase is used. "truthers" have their own little subsoncious tricks

Also note another popular trick, often used by people who recently turned 30 - calling people "teenagers". If they are right, well, he´s just a teenager. If they are wrong, well, he ACTS like a teenager. It is a win-win insult.

This is, of course, basic nlp - but you don´t need to go on a course to understand it. Some of this is bullying tactics, learned from the playground. We are all guitly of it, some more than others. (I just did it by using the phrase "of course")

(please excuse the spelling, I have exactly 2 minutes to type this)

Anyway, well said TAM.

The twoofers have taken up the mantle of the Nazis, all the while thinking that they are fighting for the American way. They have swallowed the Big Lie. They perpetrate the Big Lie. Da Twoof is the Big Lie.

There is no way that a democraticly elected government is going to produce the results they want. A return to the social programs initiated by FDR will reverse the stampede of corporate power, but it will not bring about an investigation that proves the twoofers were right about how the events of 9/11 occurred.

The twoofers will think it is still being covered up for nefarious reasons. Social unrest will continue. The liars behind the conspiracy theory will continue to agitate for the violent overthrow of the government.

There is only one weapon against the non-violent rise of white nationalism, and that is the truth that operates in this time/space continuum. By debunking their lies now, we help to deprive them of the useful idiots they need to gain control by force.

Yes, the country needs reforms, badly, to undue the damage that corporatism has done since the Reagan years, but it cannot be done on the basis of a lie.