| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
DaveyJ
Minor Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 94
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 8:11 pm Post subject: Re: Why do you guy's waste your time? |
 |
|
| Bongo Brian wrote: | | To those of you who inhabit the realms of critics corner and believe that the whole thing (CD etc) is just a daft conspiracy theory. Why do you bother? Why waste your time, is there not something you would prefer doing instead? I dont enjoy doing my work on 9/11 truth, but see it as a necessity to achieve an independant investigation. If you feel we already have the truth through the official theory, then why are you spending so much of your time here? Just seems pointless to me. |
Of course you're right in a way. But it's a weird form of entertainment where one possible outcome is that you just might change somebody's mind, or at least introduce a seed of doubt.
Dunno how many times I've discussed God or homeopathy with "believers", knowing it's ultimately a waste of time. It's hard to resist the belief that you might get through. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MiniMauve
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 220
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Personally, I find that, in some ways, this Critics Corner is more valuable than the rest of the forum. I know that's anathema to many here and I'll be in trouble again but I WANT my views questioned. I WANT a fresh mind to double-check my conclusions. I agree that many of the Critics simply aren't interested in considering the possibility of a conspiracy but I still value the opinions of those that take an honest approach to their criticism. So many from both sides of this debate resort to insults and ridicule when their views are challenged (This happens for BOTH sides, btw, Ignatz), but there is value in having your views challenged because it does force you to think. And that also goes for both sides, too.
_________________
Stick to what you KNOW. All else is disinformation, intended or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MiniMauve wrote: | | Personally, I find that, in some ways, this Critics Corner is more valuable than the rest of the forum. I know that's anathema to many here and I'll be in trouble again but I WANT my views questioned. I WANT a fresh mind to double-check my conclusions. I agree that many of the Critics simply aren't interested in considering the possibility of a conspiracy but I still value the opinions of those that take an honest approach to their criticism. So many from both sides of this debate resort to insults and ridicule when their views are challenged (This happens for BOTH sides, btw, Ignatz), but there is value in having your views challenged because it does force you to think. And that also goes for both sides, too. |
Indeed. I was shaken by Press For Truth and happy to admit it. Cheers MM. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 10:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I do it because I don't like seeing science abused and people manipulated. Conspiracy Theorists and Intelligent Design are the two biggest threats to science, today. I fight both, often. Both are able to use fallacy and sophistry to convince uninformed people of things that are not true. I am the real truth movement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 10:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MiniMauve wrote: | | Personally, I find that, in some ways, this Critics Corner is more valuable than the rest of the forum. I know that's anathema to many here and I'll be in trouble again but I WANT my views questioned. I WANT a fresh mind to double-check my conclusions. I agree that many of the Critics simply aren't interested in considering the possibility of a conspiracy but I still value the opinions of those that take an honest approach to their criticism. So many from both sides of this debate resort to insults and ridicule when their views are challenged (This happens for BOTH sides, btw, Ignatz), but there is value in having your views challenged because it does force you to think. And that also goes for both sides, too. |
Completely ditto'd
So cheers to you too Ignatz
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bongo Brian wrote: | | The collapse of building 7, the late and inaccurate conclusions made by NIST |
Hm. Have you received an advance copy of the report? I was under the impression that it wasn't due out until early next year.
On what basis do you judge its conclusions? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| So, in your professional opinion, is it acceptable, scientifically, to draw conclusions about a particular analysis without having at least seen it first? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bongo Brian wrote: | | ... If the 'final report' isn't just a re-hash of the above mixed with a huge dollop of speculative conclusion, then I will eat my hat. All you have to do is read the disclaimers on the front of these documents to realise that they are saying "Hey... we can speculate as to what happened, but we really do not have a foggy!" |
Your insulting mischaracterization of scientific caution and transparency aside, how will a "new investigation" overcome this problem of having to draw inferences from evidence? Or would you replace the current investigators with people who will announce proclamations of Proof based on their biased hunches before they've thoroughly examined the pieces? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bongo Brian wrote: | anti-sohpist, | Quote: | | So, in your professional opinion, is it acceptable, scientifically, to draw conclusions about a particular analysis without having at least seen it first? |
... not in my professional opinion, just in my expirience of NIST to date. like I said, i'll eat my hat if I am wrong.
Chipmonk, | Quote: | | Your insulting mischaracterization of scientific caution and transparency aside, how will a "new investigation" overcome this problem of having to draw inferences from evidence? Or would you replace the current investigators with people who will announce proclamations of Proof based on their biased hunches before they've thoroughly examined the pieces? |
... Scientific caution and transparency? your having a laugh! is that what the 9/11 commission report called it when they refused to even mention WTC7 in the 'FINAL REPORT'. We are over 5 years after the event, most of the critical evidence no longer exists and NIST are only now considering building 7. That to me is incompetence of the greatest degree. Heads should certainly roll.
As for being transparent. NIST have not even published an investigation plan (that, at least, I have seen) which would outline the proposed avenues of investigation for public consultation prior to the final report being issued. This is common place for example, car accidents, building fires and any criminal act where the police carry out public consultation prior to submitting a final report to the procurator fiscal or courts.
This at the very least would have allowed the publics' concerns and questions regarding specific aspects of the collapse of building 7 to be answered in the coming report. Yep, im using a bit of a hunch here... but I bet i'm not wrong! We will see. |
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
| Quote: | 14. Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers) taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?
When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to hire new staff to support the investigation. After the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers. With the release and dissemination of the report on the WTC towers in October 2005, the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed. Considerable progress has been made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new documents related to WTC 7, the development of detailed technical approaches for modeling and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and the selection of a contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the analyses. It is anticipated that a draft report will be released by early 2007.
The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:
An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;
Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and
Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.
This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.
|
http://wtc.nist.gov/public_comments_05.htm
| Quote: | WTC Public Comments
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Submission Process for Public Comments
NIST released the draft WTC Towers report and 42 supporting draft reports on June 23, 2005 for a six week public comment. All comments were due to NIST August 4, 2005. (The final report on the collapse of WTC 7 will appear in a separate report in 2006.)
Comments were encouraged on the WTC Towers Report but welcomed on all reports. NIST requested that comments be specific in nature with recommendations for change.Comments were accepted via Web site, e-mail, fax, and regular mail.
Summary of Comments Received Summary of Comments Received
Total number of submissions: 469
Nearly all major building and fire safety organizations submitted comments: (e.g., ICC, NFPA, ASCE/SEI, SFPE, NCSEA, PCA, AIA, BOMA, ACI, NASFM, AFSC, NCSBCS, AMCBO, CRSI, UL, ASTM, SPI, NFSA, NRMCA)
Multiple comments from the same organization or individual are included in one file.
Links to submitted comments
|
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/highlights.htm
| Quote: | Highlights of Revisions to WTC Investigation Plan Based on Public Comments
NIST requested and received public comments on the scope of its plan for the World Trade Center (WTC) Building and Fire Safety Investigation. Comments were received via mail, fax, e-mail, and the presentations and remarks made during the Public Meeting held in New York City on June 24, 2002. After reviewing these comments, the following key modifications were made to the WTC Investigation Plan:
Federal Advisory Committee: conflict of interest criteria for selection of members have been modified.
Additional resources have been allocated to enhance the data collection efforts for interviews and questionnaires in Project 7 on Occupational Behavior, Egress, and Emergency Communications.
Human subjects will be given careful and rigorous consideration, particularly regarding the privacy and confidentiality of their statements. NIST is committed to carrying out the investigation with the highest technical and professional standards, treating all those who experienced this disaster firsthand with kindness and sensitivity, and proceeding in accordance with all legal and administrative requirements.
The role of floor wardens and fire safety directors has been added to Project 7 and Project 8 on Emergency Responder Technologies and Guidelines.
Analysis of stairwell requirements and performance were already included in Project 1 on Analysis of Building and Fire Codes and Practices, Project 5 on Reconstruction of Thermal and Tenability Environment, Project 7, and Project 8. An analysis of the pressure resistance of the stairwell construction in the WTC towers has been added to Project 2 on Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft Impact Damage Analysis.
There were a number of comments related to the following topics, which were already included in the plan, but are restated here for clarification:
A database of photographs and video images will be developed in Project 5. A database of oral history data from survivors, witnesses, families of victims will be developed in Project 7.
Communications to building occupants is included in Project 8 and communications between emergency responders is included in Project 4.
Project 7 will seek to collect information on the evacuation from numerous sources, including correspondence relative to the WTC from OSHA.
Numerous detailed comments received on specific technical issues requiring study will be included in the appropriate investigation projects, although these details are not specifically included in the plan document.
There were many comments related to the Research and Development (R&D) Program and the Dissemination and Technical Assistance Program (DTAP), which reinforce the importance of these programs for the public benefit. The following points are presented to clarify the scope, plans, and relationship of the R&D and DTAP Programs to the WTC Investigation:
An outline of the R&D Program can be found on the NIST WTC website http//:wtc.nist.gov under Key News and Updates, click on the 5th bullet for Introduction to Proposed NIST investigation by Jack Snell.
The R&D and DTAP Programs are proceeding concurrently with the WTC Investigation.
NIST is receiving $16 million for the WTC Investigation. NIST redirected $2 million in FY2002 to provide partial support for the overall response plan. There is also a $2 million increase requested in the FY2003 President's budget for the R&D and DTAP Programs.
Many comments cited the exclusive focus of the investigation on WTC buildings 1, 2, and 7. Study of the other WTC and surrounding buildings of interest, however, is included in the R&D Program, which will address the notable responses to impact and/or fire loads in the other buildings.
There were several requests to consider analyzing other building types relative to the WTC Towers. The R&D Projects on Prevention of Progressive Collapse and Fire Safety Design and Retrofit of Structures will include steel and concrete buildings with frame, tube, or shear wall systems.
A workshop on Urban Search and Rescue (US&R) is being added to the R&D Program.
In addition to comments on the WTC Investigation and R&D and DTAP Programs, numerous offers were made to provide information and support to the Investigation. This public support is greatly appreciated. NIST will contact individuals and parties if their expertise can assist in carrying out specific investigation projects. NIST also may solicit specific information from the public during the course of the investigation.
|
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTCplan_new.htm
| Quote: | ...
Guiding Principles:
Active, comprehensive, independent, and objective technical investigation that is fully informed of the concerns and issues of all interested parties and within the limits of available resources.
Open and inclusive process in planning and conducting the investigation, and in publishing and disseminating findings and recommendations.
Contribute to improving standards, codes, and practices to reduce future risks by focusing on:
Fact-finding and analysis of the facts, and
Validating and verifying existing knowledge.
Non-technical issues are outside scope of investigation: No findings of fault or negligence of any individual or organization.
Maintain ongoing liaison with professional community, public, and local authorities.
Project teams that include NIST staff and external world-class technical experts.
Source of Information for Plan Development:
Formulation of the NIST investigation plan drew upon many sources of information from within and outside NIST. These include external experts and groups (industry, academia, and government), FEMA/ASCE Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) members, the Building Performance Study report of this team (FEMA Report 403, May 2002), NIST experts in building and fire safety, and the public-at-large. NIST held a public meeting in New York City on June 24, 2002 to gather comments and suggestions on the scope of the NIST investigation detailed in this plan. This plan has been refined based on that input, incorporating many of the suggestions received.
...
Technical Approach:
The technical approach of the NIST building and fire safety investigation will include the following phases over an estimated 24 month period:
Identification of Technical Issues and Major Hypotheses Requiring Investigation: opportunity for public input (e.g., public meeting; website; Federal Register notice) in developing investigation plan; consultations with experts in structural and fire protection engineering and in construction, maintenance, operation and emergency response procedures of tall buildings); findings and recommendations of BPAT study and technical issues identified by other experts; analysis of inputs to establish priorities for investigation; review by Federal Advisory Committee.
...
|
These were ludicrously easy to find. Would you like me to go on, or do you think you can manage on your own?
(BTW, the Commission Report was not a scientific investigation.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stateofgrace
Moderate Poster
Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 234
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
In response to the question, why do I bother?
Well I gave up a while ago trying to debate and rationalise with the die hard conspirators, hence the reason I seldom post here now.
I drop in on JREF and check out what going on but as for becoming involved in protracted and long debate here, it is pointless.
You see, you have already labelled me, a shill, a Bush supporter, asleep or whatever else you wish to label those who oppose you.
For years now I have been actively involved in the anti war party. I went on anti war demonstrations to protest against the Iraq war. I objected strongly to the UK support of the US decision to invade Iraq. I wanted the UK to listen to the rest of Europe but we didn't. So we now are in quagmire inside Iraq. The body count mounts daily, on both sides.
Iraq was a direct result of 911, it is part of the war on terror that has devastated parts of the Middle East and made our entire planet a far more dangerous us place to live. It has galvanised hatred towards us and as made all us legitimate targets for extremist’s terrorism.
The effect of 911 is not something I would disagree with. Yet in another thread one of the members here posts picture of a dead child, killed in the most appalling manner. This picture is thrust in my face and I am I told “This is what you support". Yet I don’t. I have never supported nor never will support the death of a single individual for somebody else’s political, religious or cultural believes.Yet you believe I am a blissfully unaware of it all, simply close my eyes and show indifference to it all. You are wrong.
The action and reaction are not the same. To simply label your critics as barbaric, blood thirsty war mongers who support it all is where you fail. And you will continue to fail, unless you recognise and acknowledge the difference between those who condemn the effects of 911, rather than perceived notions about the cause.
So I pop in here now and again, shake my head and move on to other forums, where world events, politics and other events are discussed rationally and civilly.
There is a rabid dog mentality on this forum, that simply will not allow anybody to object to US and UK foreign policy unless it is one your terms. This is not something I will accept.
Selling the conspiracy to the UK public will not be easy as many people have simply moved on from it and discuss other matters now. Selling it on the belief that unless we support you we support war, death and destruction is mind boggling naive and will continue to alienate this movement.
As I have stated there are unanswered questions regarding 911. This movement will never get the answers because you are asking the wrong questions. More so you us pictures of innocent children, killed in objectionable wars to further your case.
This movement is dead in the water.
*shrugs shoulders and simply moves on * |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This doesn't support any tinfoil-hat theory, it just rules out defective metal as the cause of the collapse. Has anyone claimed differently?
A 292-page report is refuted with about two pages of what amounts to an argument from incredulity. I'm not convinced.
Not exactly an unbiased source, wouldn't you agree? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The quotes spoke directly to your claim:
| Quote: | As for being transparent. NIST have not even published an investigation plan (that, at least, I have seen) which would outline the proposed avenues of investigation for public consultation prior to the final report being issued. This is common place for example, car accidents, building fires and any criminal act where the police carry out public consultation prior to submitting a final report to the procurator fiscal or courts.
This at the very least would have allowed the publics' concerns and questions regarding specific aspects of the collapse of building 7 to be answered in the coming report. |
I showed you that they did post an investigation plan and that they did solicit public input. The quotes I posted showed, quite simply, that you're wrong.
Why don't you quote the pertinent passages of your links and tell me how they contribute to your argument. There's a tip for you! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MiniMauve
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 220
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stateofgrace wrote: | In response to the question, why do I bother?
Well I gave up a while ago trying to debate and rationalise with the die hard conspirators, hence the reason I seldom post here now.
I drop in on JREF and check out what going on but as for becoming involved in protracted and long debate here, it is pointless.
You see, you have already labelled me, a shill, a Bush supporter, asleep or whatever else you wish to label those who oppose you.
For years now I have been actively involved in the anti war party. I went on anti war demonstrations to protest against the Iraq war. I objected strongly to the UK support of the US decision to invade Iraq. I wanted the UK to listen to the rest of Europe but we didn't. So we now are in quagmire inside Iraq. The body count mounts daily, on both sides.
Iraq was a direct result of 911, it is part of the war on terror that has devastated parts of the Middle East and made our entire planet a far more dangerous us place to live. It has galvanised hatred towards us and as made all us legitimate targets for extremist’s terrorism.
The effect of 911 is not something I would disagree with. Yet in another thread one of the members here posts picture of a dead child, killed in the most appalling manner. This picture is thrust in my face and I am I told “This is what you support". Yet I don’t. I have never supported nor never will support the death of a single individual for somebody else’s political, religious or cultural believes.Yet you believe I am a blissfully unaware of it all, simply close my eyes and show indifference to it all. You are wrong.
The action and reaction are not the same. To simply label your critics as barbaric, blood thirsty war mongers who support it all is where you fail. And you will continue to fail, unless you recognise and acknowledge the difference between those who condemn the effects of 911, rather than perceived notions about the cause.
So I pop in here now and again, shake my head and move on to other forums, where world events, politics and other events are discussed rationally and civilly.
There is a rabid dog mentality on this forum, that simply will not allow anybody to object to US and UK foreign policy unless it is one your terms. This is not something I will accept.
Selling the conspiracy to the UK public will not be easy as many people have simply moved on from it and discuss other matters now. Selling it on the belief that unless we support you we support war, death and destruction is mind boggling naive and will continue to alienate this movement.
As I have stated there are unanswered questions regarding 911. This movement will never get the answers because you are asking the wrong questions. More so you us pictures of innocent children, killed in objectionable wars to further your case.
This movement is dead in the water.
*shrugs shoulders and simply moves on * |
I applaud your activism, SoG. This should be a wake up call to many on this forum that, even if someone does not agree with you on the particular issue of 911, it does not make them a Bush sycophant or a shill. However, SoG, when I first came to this forum and became involved in some of the discussions in the critics corner, you were one of the Critics that struck me as tending towards insults and ridicule. I now realize that this may have been in response to insults and ridicule heaped on you. Nevertheless, it may be time for you to look in the mirror, as not all CTs (as you call us) are unwilling to countenance a differing opinion. So I urge you ( and everyone else, for that matter) to simply ignore those whom are unwilling to conduct themselves in a civilized manner. I would also like to say that it's a bit too easy to associate everyone on this forum with the actions of one poster. I certainly didn't think it was at all fair for Critics to be basically called baby-killers, but that was ONE poster, ONE opinion. Should I associate ALL critics with the guy who came in here swearing in caps a couple of weeks ago? Of course not. I wouldn't assume any of you are more than individuals with individual opinions. I'd appreciate the same consideration.
_________________
Stick to what you KNOW. All else is disinformation, intended or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bongo Brian wrote: | anti-sohpist, | Quote: | | So, in your professional opinion, is it acceptable, scientifically, to draw conclusions about a particular analysis without having at least seen it first? |
... not in my professional opinion, just in my expirience of NIST to date. like I said, i'll eat my hat if I am wrong.
|
Of course you won't be wrong, you've already made up your mind. When you presuppose things to be true, it makes it very easy to find them to be true later on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MiniMauve wrote: | | stateofgrace wrote: | In response to the question, why do I bother?
Well I gave up a while ago trying to debate and rationalise with the die hard conspirators, hence the reason I seldom post here now.
I drop in on JREF and check out what going on but as for becoming involved in protracted and long debate here, it is pointless.
You see, you have already labelled me, a shill, a Bush supporter, asleep or whatever else you wish to label those who oppose you.
For years now I have been actively involved in the anti war party. I went on anti war demonstrations to protest against the Iraq war. I objected strongly to the UK support of the US decision to invade Iraq. I wanted the UK to listen to the rest of Europe but we didn't. So we now are in quagmire inside Iraq. The body count mounts daily, on both sides.
Iraq was a direct result of 911, it is part of the war on terror that has devastated parts of the Middle East and made our entire planet a far more dangerous us place to live. It has galvanised hatred towards us and as made all us legitimate targets for extremist’s terrorism.
The effect of 911 is not something I would disagree with. Yet in another thread one of the members here posts picture of a dead child, killed in the most appalling manner. This picture is thrust in my face and I am I told “This is what you support". Yet I don’t. I have never supported nor never will support the death of a single individual for somebody else’s political, religious or cultural believes.Yet you believe I am a blissfully unaware of it all, simply close my eyes and show indifference to it all. You are wrong.
The action and reaction are not the same. To simply label your critics as barbaric, blood thirsty war mongers who support it all is where you fail. And you will continue to fail, unless you recognise and acknowledge the difference between those who condemn the effects of 911, rather than perceived notions about the cause.
So I pop in here now and again, shake my head and move on to other forums, where world events, politics and other events are discussed rationally and civilly.
There is a rabid dog mentality on this forum, that simply will not allow anybody to object to US and UK foreign policy unless it is one your terms. This is not something I will accept.
Selling the conspiracy to the UK public will not be easy as many people have simply moved on from it and discuss other matters now. Selling it on the belief that unless we support you we support war, death and destruction is mind boggling naive and will continue to alienate this movement.
As I have stated there are unanswered questions regarding 911. This movement will never get the answers because you are asking the wrong questions. More so you us pictures of innocent children, killed in objectionable wars to further your case.
This movement is dead in the water.
*shrugs shoulders and simply moves on * |
I applaud your activism, SoG. This should be a wake up call to many on this forum that, even if someone does not agree with you on the particular issue of 911, it does not make them a Bush sycophant or a shill. However, SoG, when I first came to this forum and became involved in some of the discussions in the critics corner, you were one of the Critics that struck me as tending towards insults and ridicule. I now realize that this may have been in response to insults and ridicule heaped on you. Nevertheless, it may be time for you to look in the mirror, as not all CTs (as you call us) are unwilling to countenance a differing opinion. So I urge you ( and everyone else, for that matter) to simply ignore those whom are unwilling to conduct themselves in a civilized manner. I would also like to say that it's a bit too easy to associate everyone on this forum with the actions of one poster. I certainly didn't think it was at all fair for Critics to be basically called baby-killers, but that was ONE poster, ONE opinion. Should I associate ALL critics with the guy who came in here swearing in caps a couple of weeks ago? Of course not. I wouldn't assume any of you are more than individuals with individual opinions. I'd appreciate the same consideration. |
i couldnt stop laughing when i read the first few lines of this one. the question i want to ask is this. if it wrong for us to call you shills or bush lovers why is it ok for you to call us tin foil hat wearers or short of intellegance? you carnt have it both ways. critics should either quit complaning or take there own advice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 2:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
if it wrong for us to call you shills or bush lovers why is it ok for you to call us tin foil hat wearers or short of intellegance?
|
As a government shill, let me answer: it's not. At least not a priori. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MiniMauve
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 220
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 4:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | MiniMauve wrote: | | stateofgrace wrote: | In response to the question, why do I bother?
Well I gave up a while ago trying to debate and rationalise with the die hard conspirators, hence the reason I seldom post here now.
I drop in on JREF and check out what going on but as for becoming involved in protracted and long debate here, it is pointless.
You see, you have already labelled me, a shill, a Bush supporter, asleep or whatever else you wish to label those who oppose you.
For years now I have been actively involved in the anti war party. I went on anti war demonstrations to protest against the Iraq war. I objected strongly to the UK support of the US decision to invade Iraq. I wanted the UK to listen to the rest of Europe but we didn't. So we now are in quagmire inside Iraq. The body count mounts daily, on both sides.
Iraq was a direct result of 911, it is part of the war on terror that has devastated parts of the Middle East and made our entire planet a far more dangerous us place to live. It has galvanised hatred towards us and as made all us legitimate targets for extremist’s terrorism.
The effect of 911 is not something I would disagree with. Yet in another thread one of the members here posts picture of a dead child, killed in the most appalling manner. This picture is thrust in my face and I am I told “This is what you support". Yet I don’t. I have never supported nor never will support the death of a single individual for somebody else’s political, religious or cultural believes.Yet you believe I am a blissfully unaware of it all, simply close my eyes and show indifference to it all. You are wrong.
The action and reaction are not the same. To simply label your critics as barbaric, blood thirsty war mongers who support it all is where you fail. And you will continue to fail, unless you recognise and acknowledge the difference between those who condemn the effects of 911, rather than perceived notions about the cause.
So I pop in here now and again, shake my head and move on to other forums, where world events, politics and other events are discussed rationally and civilly.
There is a rabid dog mentality on this forum, that simply will not allow anybody to object to US and UK foreign policy unless it is one your terms. This is not something I will accept.
Selling the conspiracy to the UK public will not be easy as many people have simply moved on from it and discuss other matters now. Selling it on the belief that unless we support you we support war, death and destruction is mind boggling naive and will continue to alienate this movement.
As I have stated there are unanswered questions regarding 911. This movement will never get the answers because you are asking the wrong questions. More so you us pictures of innocent children, killed in objectionable wars to further your case.
This movement is dead in the water.
*shrugs shoulders and simply moves on * |
I applaud your activism, SoG. This should be a wake up call to many on this forum that, even if someone does not agree with you on the particular issue of 911, it does not make them a Bush sycophant or a shill. However, SoG, when I first came to this forum and became involved in some of the discussions in the critics corner, you were one of the Critics that struck me as tending towards insults and ridicule. I now realize that this may have been in response to insults and ridicule heaped on you. Nevertheless, it may be time for you to look in the mirror, as not all CTs (as you call us) are unwilling to countenance a differing opinion. So I urge you ( and everyone else, for that matter) to simply ignore those whom are unwilling to conduct themselves in a civilized manner. I would also like to say that it's a bit too easy to associate everyone on this forum with the actions of one poster. I certainly didn't think it was at all fair for Critics to be basically called baby-killers, but that was ONE poster, ONE opinion. Should I associate ALL critics with the guy who came in here swearing in caps a couple of weeks ago? Of course not. I wouldn't assume any of you are more than individuals with individual opinions. I'd appreciate the same consideration. |
i couldnt stop laughing when i read the first few lines of this one. the question i want to ask is this. if it wrong for us to call you shills or bush lovers why is it ok for you to call us tin foil hat wearers or short of intellegance? you carnt have it both ways. critics should either quit complaning or take there own advice. |
Is this directed at me or SoG?
If it's directed at me, I suggest you read my complete reply to SoG. Why is it so distateful to respect people that you happen to disagree with? That's a rhetorical question directed at both sides of this argument, btw.
In any case, isn't it obvious that it is NOT okay to call us tin-foilers, just as it is NOT okay to label anyone who disagrees with us a shill?
_________________
Stick to what you KNOW. All else is disinformation, intended or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
