Weigh in on the 9/11 threads

Yiwah wrote:

Do you disagree with what I've said, Jas?

I think this does occur sometimes. It's my personal opinion that Pants is guilty of it.

Actually I pretty much concurred with what she said in post #93.

polly bee wrote:

Is this the point where I quote myself, and bold where I said for every person I know in real life?  Wasn't talking about you TB, or the good people here.  I was pointing out that outside of rabble, I have found as little concensus on the subject as is evident here.

Sorry, misread that.  The context of the thread was babble threads, thought it was related.

I think the point stands, though, that there is a very similar pattern existing in both subject streams.

continue please over here

Actually, IIRC, Tigana did and I think another poster suggested this as well.  Links to a woman who accused WHO being in on it. 

And yeah, 9 years would be a long time to lie in wait...  ;-)

And while I know you are able to discern, I don't know that's the case with everyone on the interwebz...  Certainly, there were some posters putting their faith in some pretty far-out bullshit.  That worries me, and so does promulgation of that kind of bullshit.  People get hurt by it.

Yiwah wrote:

Siamdave, you throw accusations around quite willy nilly and then complain that it's done to you.  In general your accusations involve people being brainwashed by the mainstream media, or believing uncritically in what is said in the mainstream media.  You also constantly make vague accusations about participant's dishonesty, etc etc.

The terms that you, jas and fidel constantly use also colour the debate.  IMO, quite unnecessarily so.  Again, I point out that naming yourself 'truthers' and everyone else 'non-truthers' is akin to an accusation that those who don't totally agree with you are either liars, or complicit in some sort of cover up.  This loaded language is akin to right-wing smear campaigns against pro-choicers (relabelling them pro-abortionists), or left-wingers calling pro-lifers 'anti-choicers'.  Perhaps you feel your terminology is appropriate.  Perhaps you can see why others who use loaded terms would also feel their choices of language are appropriate.

While I agree that it serves no purpose to have people simply say "you guys are full of it" and then disappear, I also think it serves no purpose when people  claim that anyone who doesn't buy into their argument 100% is somehow 'dishonest, brainwashed' etc. 

If you want less name calling, perhaps engaging in less of it yourself would help?

 

- I take it then my comments on Post 87 got a bit close to the bone, as they say? Nothing to refute there, so you turn to your usual patronising "Oh, you silly proles aren't qualified to talk about things the "experts" have already given their decision on, listen to your betters' schtick? Being told the truth, esp when it puts them in a bad light, really irks some people, I know, and they just get all defensive and start throwing insults around uncontrollably, it seems, as a kind of distraction defence. Your talk about we po folk listening to our highly-educated expert betters just doesn't wash though - in capitalist society, the most successfull 'experts' are those who are willing to lie for money in the service of money. Government and media and even academia these days are full of them. You want me to believe lawyers after all of the wrongful convicion cases we've been hearing about? And I can assure you they are but the tip of the iceberg. You want me to believe academics who are selling higher education out to big business? Right. As far as 911 'experts', you make many allusions, but who on the babble lists is an 'expert' in any relevant field? Who are you telling we people who disbelieve the 911 official conspiracy theory to believe, anyway - can you be specific? And if you don't want us to use the term 'truther' suggest something else - it is my belief that the entire official conspiracy theory is a great lie and coverup, so saying I am still waiting for the truth is not a very unreasonable way to put it. I don't mind talking with people who have not done the reading about this I have to expain the many problems with the official story that are NOT covered in your precious mainstream media - and to suggest that I spent a few minutes googling and got somehow brainwashed with shallow things is really getting pretty insulting after the years of reading and writing and talking with others I have done on this - but again, that's your bag, isn't it? You know nothing at all about me, but you don't need to - your game is to get people away from talking about issues by personal insults of not being qualified to talk about things if they don't meet your standards, whatever they are. Would you care to enlighten us on what your qualifications are sometime for passing all of these judgements as if you're Mother talking to the children? As for people being 'brainwashed' by the mainstream media - well, it might be a bit insulting to some people, but that isn't the point - is it true? There's quite a lot of well-researched and thought out opinion out there to indicate it is. Read your Lippmann and Ellul and Bernays sometime, for a bit of a beginning - they seem to have pretty good credentials, and never wrote anything at all on the internet, so you can't smear them that way ... again, pretty deep stuff you're never going to read in your mainstream media, which is pretty LCD oriented, and getting moreso by the year.

Of course, if the mainstream media is your main source of info, you probably wouldn't understand that kind of thing very well - readers of the mainstream media understand what the mainstream media want them to understand, and precious little else. As many of the comments on these discussions indicate all too well.