Are web forums a good barometer for the strength of 9-11 conspiracy theories?

[Thunder]

Are the popularity and number of daily posts at Loose Change, Pilots for Truth, and the other 9-11 conspiracy theory forums, a good barometer for the popularity of 9-11 conspiracy theories?

Cause, incase you haven't noticed lately, the amount of posts and traffic at some of these forums is beyond pathetic. Like 10 posts a day..or less. Im surprised some of them even still exist.

Does this mean that since Obama was elected, interest in 9-11 theories is indeed reaching its low Zenith? It might indeed be so. We may have indeed reached the point where only the truly paranoid follow such things.

;)

[T.A.M.]

Web Forums are but a single variable to use. Not a great one, but it has its advantages.

Overall I think things such as OVERALL book sales of CT books, compared to other book sales is a good barometer, as is TV coverage, as well as turn outs at protests.

The truth movement is all but dead, regardless of their input on this forum.

TAM:)

[Thunder]

agreed. it died after they failed to produce another investigation, revolution, or mass theatre presense for Loose Change at the end of 2007. since then, their numbers have dwindled..as has interest in their ideas.

and, i have to say, it may have had NOTHING to do with debunkers, JREF, or even Obama. they simply killed themselves, with big dreams....and little pay out.

shoot for the moon..and you crash and burn. all we seem to have now is the paranoid hardcore believers, and the few naive "new investigation" and "revolution" hold outs. but i think they will have disappeared within a year or two.

congrats, 9-11 truth, you did our job for us. cheers!!

=)

[Tweeter]

Why would you only include a handful of CT forums?
There are hundreds of websites with subforums on 911.
Thousands, if not tens of thousands on YouTUbe are twoofers.
You dont need a black tshirt, banner or a website to question the OS. Friends of mine that wouldnt discuss it years ago are just now waking up and questioning it.

[Grizzly Bear]

Are the popularity and number of daily posts at Loose Change, Pilots for Truth, and the other 9-11 conspiracy theory forums, a good barometer for the popularity of 9-11 conspiracy theories?

Cause, incase you haven't noticed lately, the amount of posts and traffic at some of these forums is beyond pathetic. Like 10 posts a day..or less. Im surprised some of them even still exist.

Does this mean that since Obama was elected, interest in 9-11 theories is indeed reaching its low Zenith? It might indeed be so. We may have indeed reached the point where only the truly paranoid follow such things.

;)
Forums aren't really a good measure par say, afterall there are many out there. It may to an extent indicate the popularity of local sites but not everyone joins a forum some people regardless of their standing simply browse them as guests. If you want a better barometer of the conspiracy popularity then real life is probably your best indicator.

[Thunder]

Forums aren't really a good measure par say, afterall there are many out there. It may to an extent indicate the popularity of local sites but not everyone joins a forum some people regardless of their standing simply browse them as guests. If you want a better barometer of the conspiracy popularity then real life is probably your best indicator.

real life?...you mean like..attendance at truther events?

well..that would just be unfair. we all know that their events get horrible turn outs. =)

[Grizzly Bear]

Why would you only include a handful of CT forums?
There are hundreds of websites with subforums on 911.
Thousands, if not tens of thousands on YouTUbe are twoofers.
You dont need a black tshirt, banner or a website to question the OS. Friends of mine that wouldnt discuss it years ago are just now waking up and questioning it.

In the last seven years I've met one or two conspiracy buffs that have some inclination toward truth movement views, but neither are affiliated with, or have heard on many of the apparently best known sites. And neither are too enthusiastic over the TM's popular contentions of CD or those other wide claims at least from what I can gather after bringing up some of the material into the discussion...

I think that's a reasonable indication that the truth movement doesn't have much traction, and has been more an internet phenomenon in my experience. I was only cosmetically aware of any conspiracy claims until as recently as this year, when I got into the subject

[Thunder]

Why would you only include a handful of CT forums?
There are hundreds of websites with subforums on 911.
Thousands, if not tens of thousands on YouTUbe are twoofers.
You dont need a black tshirt, banner or a website to question the OS. Friends of mine that wouldnt discuss it years ago are just now waking up and questioning it.

no, I think our friend is right. the best way to gauge the strength of the 9-11 truth "movement"..is attendance at their events and gatherings..which tends to be utterly pathetic.

9-11 truth may indeed be over. perhaps i should re-evaluate my posting in this section. its become quite boring and repetative.

[Sparky]

Why would you only include a handful of CT forums?
There are hundreds of websites with subforums on 911.
Thousands, if not tens of thousands on YouTUbe are twoofers.
You dont need a black tshirt, banner or a website to question the OS. Friends of mine that wouldnt discuss it years ago are just now waking up and questioning it.

You're on the wrong side of history. Deal with it.

Face it. You have failed to pursuade a single soul here on this forum. Your antagonistic approach alone has not helped one bit.

[JihadJane]

The reassuring notion that twoofers are some kind of separate, weird subspecies leads to all sorts of confusion. Why should people who have concluded that elements of the US power elite were complicit in 911 have to post on forums or join gatherings? What kind of person has time to spend hours at a computer terminal every day?

Many 911 skeptics realised years ago that the chance to nail the perpetrators had passed and got on with other things, including building community support networks and survival strategies for the long-predicted economic disaster that is now breaking upon us. Times have changed. The elite have lost control of their downward-spiralling monster!

[Thunder]

The reassuring notion that twoofers are some kind of separate, weird subspecies leads to all sorts of confusion.

nice straw man. anyways, see ya.

[Sparky]

The reassuring notion that twoofers are some kind of separate, weird subspecies leads to all sorts of confusion.
Well, you're really not normal as a subspecies

What kind of person has time to spend hours at a computer terminal every day?
ULTIMA1

Many 911 skeptics realised years ago that the chance to nail the perpetrators had passed and got on with other things, including building community support networks and survival strategies for the long-predicted economic disaster that is now breaking upon us. Times have changed. The elite have lost control of their downward-spiralling monster!

I'm not a member of the "elite". I think I'll survive, too.

[nicepants]

Why should people who have concluded that elements of the US power elite were complicit in 911 have to post on forums or join gatherings?

Wow....if I thought for a minute that my own government, spender of my tax dollars, murdered and subsequently covered up the murder of thousands of innocent civilians...I would be doing everything in my power to bring them to justice.

The reason internet postings can be (somewhat) used as a means to measure the "strength" of 9/11 conspiracy theories is that is the location where truthers have the most activity. For every 500 truthers who post on a truther message board, there's one who shows up at any event or protest.

As to tweeter's claim that there are thousands or "tens of thousands" of truthers on youtube....I think the number is probably more reasonably in the hundreds.


To answer the OP directly....based on the observed behavior of truthers, the quantity and frequency of their online posts on the subject is probably a pretty accurate way of measuring the "strength" of their movement.

[GooseGrl172]

If you want a better barometer of the conspiracy popularity then real life is probably your best indicator.

Yep, I couldn't believe it when my therapist told me he believed some of the cts (then proceeded to recommend zeitgeist for my viewing pleasure). I lost a lot of respect for him that day. An uncle and my step Dad have said they believe it was an inside job (though not in those words), and a colleague was unsure:covereyes. So while the hardcore twoofers may be dwindling, there are still those who believe in certain aspects of the ct.

[Grizzly Bear]

Yep, I couldn't believe it when my therapist told me he believed some of the cts (then proceeded to recommend zeitgeist for my viewing pleasure). I lost a lot of respect for him that day. An uncle and my step Dad have said they believe it was an inside job (though not in those words), and a colleague was unsure:covereyes. So while the hardcore twoofers may be dwindling, there are still those who believe in certain aspects of the ct.

Actually the two people I referred to I found out about today... and I got shown one of the TV fakery youtube vids. I forget the name, maybe if I'm not too lazy to open my laptop I'll grab it... The other one just didn't understand the mechanics of the collapse (if you're familiar with the issue of "how did the upper section destroy the larger lower section" conundrum)

The University also occasionally shows some conspiracy movies like Zeitgeist more recently. Most showings though took place in the evening when I was already out of class so I haven't had the opportunity to view the attendance of any of them. Outside of those events though today is one of the few times I've spoken with anyone about the conspiracy theory material off-line.

And I literally had to bring up the subject myself to initiate the conversation...

[eromitlab]

Web forums are a decent way to gauge the relative strength of the "truth" movement. After all, all of their "evidence" is Web-based. The pseudodocumentaries that turn most if not all truthists on to the "truth" are almost exclusively Web-distributed. Most if not all truthist pseudodocumentaries, literature, rallies, bullhornings, vandalism, sign-wavings, et cetera... push people to the Web. Web traffic to the most heavily promoted sites (ae911twoof, 911blogger, Alex Jones's fifty different sites that say the same thing) is probably the best indicator of the truth movement's veracity. Forums are a good indicator as well, since that's the path most truthists see to "taking action" on their beliefs, but we should also take into account those who have roamed among truther forums or don't post on them any more because they've been banned for not having the right belief system.

[johnny karate]

You dont need a black tshirt, banner or a website to question the OS.

That's correct. All you need to be a Truther is Internet access and the complete unwillingness to ever take any constructive action.

[Myriad]

... building community support networks and survival strategies for the long-predicted economic disaster that is now breaking upon us. Times have changed...


Indeed they have. Back before the Internet, this activity was usually called "borrowing a few bucks, just until I find work."

Respectfully,
Myriad

[T.A.M.]

1. This tactic of trying to belittle the opponent through comments about their time spent on the internet is not only old and boring, but is kind of ironic, given that most of those doing such name calling, spend considerable time online on the internet.

2. The truth "movement" is dead. Now interest, passing interest, in what "really happened" (cue spooky music again) on 9/11 might go on forever. Sure, just like there are millions of people out there entertained at the notion of a secret conspiracy to shoot JFK, there will be passing interest in "what if the government really helped plot 9/11". The difference is, the issue, as far as development of a movement of any kind, is OVER.

TAM:)

[JihadJane]

Well, you're really not normal as a subspecies

What is a "normal" subspecies?


ULTIMA1

Sparky



I'm not a member of the "elite". I think I'll survive, too.

Good luck.

[funk de fino]

Sparky

Ultima1
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,017

Sparky
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 245

utter failure again

[rwguinn]

As an inducator of the strength of the truther movement, web forums are a very good indicator of the desperation, ignorance, and, all too often, stupidity and/or insanity, of the "truth movement" to the sane people of the world...

[JihadJane]

Indeed they have. Back before the Internet, this activity was usually called "borrowing a few bucks, just until I find work."

Respectfully,
Myriad

Well, there's going to be a lot more of that about in the near future.

This is what I was referring to:

'Transition Towns: Learning to build a good life together'

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/47296

Worshipfully,
JihadJane

[Dave Rogers]

This is what I was referring to:

'Transition Towns: Learning to build a good life together'

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/47296


Strange. I read through the website, but I must have missed the part where it said that the people involved in this movement were former 9/11 truthers. Could you link to some of the websites where Carl Etnier, Will Rapp and Margo Baldwin expound their theories about what really happened on 9/11?

Dave

[~enigma~]

What kind of person has time to spend hours at a computer terminal every day?
So says the kind of person that has 1354 posts in 5 months. Do you know what irony is?

[Thunder]

What kind of person has time to spend hours at a computer terminal every day?



you have posted 1,354 comments since July 10th.

thats about....4 months.
30 days per month. 120 days

1,354 posts in 120 days is...11 posts per day.

thats about the average for a JREFer.

[JihadJane]

Strange. I read through the website, but I must have missed the part where it said that the people involved in this movement were former 9/11 truthers. Could you link to some of the websites where Carl Etnier, Will Rapp and Margo Baldwin expound their theories about what really happened on 9/11?

Dave

Hello Dave,

I first came across the article at http://carolynbaker.net . Carolyn Baker is a twoofywoofywoofer as are many of her newsletter readers. I myself published a magazine partly about 911 twoof and partly about Peak Oil in 2006 expecting it to cause a stir. It didn't because most people I sold it too already believed that 911 was an "inside job".

- - - - - - - - -

So says the kind of person that has 1354 posts in 5 months. Do you know what irony is?

Do you know what black and white thinking is?

I wasn't excluding myself from "the kind of person" category.

you have posted 1,354 comments since July 10th.

thats about....4 months.
30 days per month. 120 days

1,354 posts in 120 days is...11 posts per day.

thats about the average for a JREFer.

Yes.

[T.A.M.]

Like I said, the issue of posts per day, etc, is a stupid one.

Last year i was posting an average of 20 posts per day.

Now given 80% of my posts, like this one, took me no more than a minute to do, that is not that bad really.

Besides, spending 20-30 minutes per day at such things is far from "obsession" or any other derogatory term the desperate which to fling.

The rest of my life is likely much more productive than 90% of the truthers who may post here far less than me.

TAM:)

[JihadJane]

The rest of my life is likely much more productive than 90% of the truthers who may post here far less than me.

Are you sure it isn't 91%? How can you possibly know this? Are you psychic?

[Grizzly Bear]

Are you sure it isn't 91%? How can you possibly know this? Are you psychic?

Like I give a flying crap :)

My earlier point is that internet web forums are gathering places, a forum is based on a particular set of topics and people will join based on their interest in the topic. It's not at all surprising that one would meet a congregation of people in one spot. As far as the 9/11 conspiracy is concerned, I've met two people who believed and openly discussed the topic with me in person, and I had to initiate the topic myself. They are far from the fanatical level of many of the ones I argue with on the internet. So two people in seven years, and little if any mention of it... ever... offline in my personal life.

It clearly didn't have as much popularity as the presidential elections where I had Obama and McCain groups all over the university with politics ringing out my ears...

Does this mean nobody believes in something close to a conspiracy of some kind? No not really, but apparently the movement doesn't have enough popularity to warrant day to day discussion either...

[Dave Rogers]

I first came across the article at http://carolynbaker.net . Carolyn Baker is a twoofywoofywoofer as are many of her newsletter readers.

I see. So when you said that "Many 911 skeptics realised years ago that the chance to nail the perpetrators had passed and got on with other things, including building community support networks and survival strategies for the long-predicted economic disaster that is now breaking upon us", you actually meant "I am aware of one 9/11 denier who has written a blog article linking to someone else's piece about some other people experimenting with more sustainable habitats", right?

Dave

[JihadJane]

I see ... you actually meant "I am aware of one 9/11 denier who has written a blog article linking to someone else's piece about some other people experimenting with more sustainable habitats", right?

Dave

Wrong. I'm not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse or just blinkered but I know it's fun making up quotes.

Here are a couple more examples. Michael Ruppert, one of the foremost and first 911 debunkers, now gives very little (if any) time to 911 but focuses on issues of societal collapse. Another similarly talented 911 and 7/7 researcher, Nafeez Ahmed, has a similar focus, in this article, for instance, in which he discusses Climate catastrophe, Peak oil, Food scarcity and Economic instability:

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/01/388935.html

It is logical that many 911 skeptics have moved on in this direction. For followers of the faith like yourself, however, I imagine it is completely incomprehensible. It is a bit like believing in Santa Claus...once one realises that he doesn't exist one simply assimilates this information into one's life and carries on living, a little bit wiser.

See also http://oilempire.us/index.html

[Dave Rogers]

It is logical that many 911 skeptics have moved on in this direction. For followers of the faith like yourself, however, I imagine it is completely incomprehensible. It is a bit like believing in Santa Claus...once one realises that he doesn't exist one simply assimilates this information into one's life and carries on living, a little bit wiser.

Firstly, this is a strange delusion you possess about me. Precisely what faith do you imagine me to follow? It's certainly not a faith in the incompetent and venal Bush administration, or the mass media whose primary aims must necessarily include the running of a profitable business. Nor is it a faith in the moral superiority of a foreign country. It certainly isn't a blind, unquestioning faith in a superannuated theologian, a discredited physics professor with a tendency towards religious fundamentalism, or a radio demagogue with a vastly inflated opinion of his own importance. Just what, in your strange and unfathomable world, is this faith?

Secondly, your assertion that once one firmly believes that one's own government is guilty of mass murder, the mature reaction is to do nothing about it and instead make a big deal of something a lot of other people have been doing for decades, is, to put it mildly, unexpected. For one who has tried many times to foster an unwarranted sense of outrage on this forum, the advice to "carry on living, a little bit wiser" seems rather a radical change of tack. But please don't feel pressurised into self-consistency on my account.

Dave

[stilicho]

Michael Ruppert, one of the foremost and first 911 debunkers, now gives very little (if any) time to 911 but focuses on issues of societal collapse. Another similarly talented 911 and 7/7 researcher, Nafeez Ahmed, has a similar focus, in this article, for instance, in which he discusses Climate catastrophe, Peak oil, Food scarcity and Economic instability:

These two in particular are simply resurrecting and masking the old discredited work of Paul Ehrlich. The twist that (especially) Ruppert puts on it is that the Club of Rome and other "elitist" think-tanks tackling social issues are doing so in a manner that only benefits the "elitists".

Ruppert has more than a few things going against him. He doesn't pay his bills and blamed an eviction on the government. He thinks that corporations control the CIA (or vice versa...it's never clear). When he does periodically appear, he maintains that unspecified agents or agencies are trying to variously silence or murder him.

Ruppert was involved with his peculiar style of conspiracy theories prior to 9/11. He isn't "moving on" to fresh territory. He is an opportunist--similar to Alex Jones, who also railed against the Federal Reserve and owl-worshipping "elites" before 9/11--and is simply retiring to more familiar ground.

[JohnG]

It is a bit like believing in Santa Claus...once one realises that he doesn't exist one simply assimilates this information into one's life and carries on living, a little bit wiser.


You have inadvertently stumbled upon a very profound truth, but it doesn't mean quite what you think it means.

[TjW]

It is a bit like believing in Santa Claus...once one realises that he doesn't exist one simply assimilates this information into one's life and carries on living, a little bit wiser.


You have inadvertently stumbled upon a very profound truth, but it doesn't mean quite what you think it means.

Inconceivable!

[chillzero]

Stop bickering and personalising the thread. Stay on topic and stay civil.

[JihadJane]

Firstly, this is a strange delusion you possess about me. Precisely what faith do you imagine me to follow? ... in your strange and unfathomable world, is this faith?

Secondly, your assertion that once one firmly believes that one's own government is guilty of mass murder, the mature reaction is to do nothing about it and instead make a big deal of something a lot of other people have been doing for decades, is, to put it mildly, unexpected. For one who has tried many times to foster an unwarranted sense of outrage on this forum, the advice to "carry on living, a little bit wiser" seems rather a radical change of tack. But please don't feel pressurised into self-consistency on my account.

Dave

Hello Dave,

Your list of favourite troofer celebrities and faiths from the "other" side suggests that you know which faith I "imagine [you] to follow". Discussions on forums like this often have a quasi-religious fervour and not everyone is drawn to evangelical proselytising.

I do not see how you have interpreted my words as asserting "that once one firmly believes that one's own government is guilty of mass murder, the mature reaction is to do nothing about it". I was talking about people (including myself) who, out of a passionate desire for justice, have done a lot about it and take their experience into a broader context. They may choose not to spend their time on 911-related forums. This doesn't mean that they have abandoned their analysis of the attacks and that their analysis is weak.

- - - - - - - - - - -


These two in particular are simply resurrecting and masking the old discredited work of Paul Ehrlich. The twist that (especially) Ruppert puts on it is that the Club of Rome and other "elitist" think-tanks tackling social issues are doing so in a manner that only benefits the "elitists".

Ruppert has more than a few things going against him. He doesn't pay his bills and blamed an eviction on the government. He thinks that corporations control the CIA (or vice versa...it's never clear). When he does periodically appear, he maintains that unspecified agents or agencies are trying to variously silence or murder him.

Ruppert was involved with his peculiar style of conspiracy theories prior to 9/11. He isn't "moving on" to fresh territory. He is an opportunist--similar to Alex Jones, who also railed against the Federal Reserve and owl-worshipping "elites" before 9/11--and is simply retiring to more familiar ground.

Hi stilicho. Long time no see.

Your stunningly inaccurate smears about and attempted personality assassination of Ruppert are not made more accurate by name-dropping or by framing them with impressive-sounding "analysis".

The OP asks "Are web forums a good barometer for the strength of 9-11 conspiracy theories?" That Ruppert and other choose to focus their considerable analytical talents on other, related issues, illustrates that web forum activity is not a reliable "barometer for the strength of 9-11 conspiracy theories".

Ruppert's blog, run by Jenna Orkin, contains some of the best discussion on the web about humanity's current crises. I have found his recent comments about "the elite" particularly interesting. He suggests it is weakened and has lost control of events:

http://www.mikeruppert.blogspot.com/

[funk de fino]

Of course the OP says this

Are the popularity and number of daily posts at Loose Change, Pilots for Truth, and the other 9-11 conspiracy theory forums, a good barometer for the popularity of 9-11 conspiracy theories?

The answer is yes.

Maybe Ruppert and the others have moved away having realised that lack of facts and evidence for the CT would hamper any efforts they make make to bring this to fruition. Nafeez may have made a better go at 911 if he had not just repeated the same old lies that many other TM leaders made.

If the TM was so sure of what they claim they should be doing as much as the protestors in Thailand. The fact they are not, says a lot about the TM and also the lack of evidence for the CT.

Quite probably the worst political "movement" in history.

I was talking about people (including myself) who, out of a passionate desire for justice, have done a lot about it and take their experience into a broader context.

What have you done to bring the perps to justice?

[tfk]

Why would you only include a handful of CT forums?
There are hundreds of websites with subforums on 911.
Thousands, if not tens of thousands on YouTUbe are twoofers.
You dont need a black tshirt, banner or a website to question the OS. Friends of mine that wouldnt discuss it years ago are just now waking up and questioning it.
Here is exactly why I would not include all the CTer forums: A very few people write comments, and others spam their comments everywhere. Massively distorting the numbers.

Allow me to provide an example. On another board, several of the members simply copy & paste snippets. For one very earnest CTer, this is all that he does. I didn't realize it for awhile until the same snippets started showing up from several different people in a couple of different threads. Still, I thought that they were simply copying from each other on that board.

I was wrong. Here's a sampling of what I found:


"Our worst fears have come true. It is clear that Mossad is involved in the whole affair"
Results 1 - 10 of about 480
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Our+worst+fears+have+come+true.+It+is+ clear+that+Mossad+is+involved+in+the+whole+affair% 22&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=2AE&filter=0


"Halliburton, an oil services company based in Bush's home-state of Texas"

Twoofer SPAM-O-METER says:
Results 1 - 10 of about 106
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Halliburton,+an+oil+services+company+b ased+in+Bush%27s+home-state+of+Texas%22&hl=en&filter=0


"Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said Tuesday that it’s plausible that the U.S. government was involved"
Results 1 - 10 of about 229
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Venezuelan+President+Hugo+Chavez+said+ Tuesday+that+it%E2%80%99s+plausible+that+the+U.S.+ government+was+involved%22&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&filter=0

On the internet, a few fanatics can wildly distort reality.

IMO, book sales are probably the best easily available metric.

Perhaps Alex Jones' discretionary spending being a distant second...

tk

[1337m4n]

For everyone's consideration:

BLUE: 9/11 truth RED: Necrophilia

http://www.google.com/trends/viz?q=9/11+Truth,+necrophilia&graph=weekly_img&sa=N

[JihadJane]

Maybe Ruppert and the others have moved away having realised that lack of facts and evidence for the CT would hamper any efforts they make make to bring this to fruition.

Nothing Ruppert has ever written supports this speculation.

[funk de fino]

Nothing Ruppert has ever written supports this speculation.

Some people find it hard to accept they were wrong eh?? Maybe he has a done a Dylan?


You forgot this

What have you done to bring the perps to justice?

[jaydeehess]

Here is exactly why I would not include all the CTer forums: A very few people write comments, and others spam their comments everywhere. Massively distorting the numbers.

Allow me to provide an example. On another board, several of the members simply copy & paste snippets. For one very earnest CTer, this is all that he does. I didn't realize it for awhile until the same snippets started showing up from several different people in a couple of different threads. Still, I thought that they were simply copying from each other on that board.

I was wrong. Here's a sampling of what I found:


"Our worst fears have come true. It is clear that Mossad is involved in the whole affair"
Results 1 - 10 of about 480
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Our+worst+fears+have+come+true.+It+is+ clear+that+Mossad+is+involved+in+the+whole+affair% 22&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=2AE&filter=0


"Halliburton, an oil services company based in Bush's home-state of Texas"

Twoofer SPAM-O-METER says:
Results 1 - 10 of about 106
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Halliburton,+an+oil+services+company+b ased+in+Bush%27s+home-state+of+Texas%22&hl=en&filter=0


"Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said Tuesday that it’s plausible that the U.S. government was involved"
Results 1 - 10 of about 229
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Venezuelan+President+Hugo+Chavez+said+ Tuesday+that+it%E2%80%99s+plausible+that+the+U.S.+ government+was+involved%22&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&filter=0

On the internet, a few fanatics can wildly distort reality.

IMO, book sales are probably the best easily available metric.

Perhaps Alex Jones' discretionary spending being a distant second...

tk

On the flip side is the poster on "The Blackvault" who posts almost exclusivly, copy and pastes of articles on every conspiracy you care to mention. In this way he is most prolific but he will engage in no discussion or debate of the articles whatsoever.

[stilicho]

Ruppert's blog, run by Jenna Orkin, contains some of the best discussion on the web about humanity's current crises. I have found his recent comments about "the elite" particularly interesting. He suggests it is weakened and has lost control of events:

http://www.mikeruppert.blogspot.com/

I guess you missed the point. This isn't a new field for Ruppert. He was writing all kinds of doom and gloom prior to 9/11. He believes in a coming "race war" and has so long before 9/11. He jumps on anything topical, makes a fast buck off his target audience, and then disappears until the next big thing.

[JihadJane]

I guess you missed the point. This isn't a new field for Ruppert.

Whatever. Your previous post was an unprincipled attempt to smear Ruppert's character with lies, as is this one, which is also contains pure fiction:

He was writing all kinds of doom and gloom prior to 9/11. He believes in a coming "race war" and has so long before 9/11. He jumps on anything topical, makes a fast buck off his target audience, and then disappears until the next big thing.


It is irrelevant whether or not this is "a new field" for him, something I never claimed anyway. What is relevant to the OP is that his and others change of focus away from 911 onto other pressing issues cannot be used as a "barometer for the strength of conspiracy theories" any more than the number of people actively researching, discussing or agitating around the topic can be. At best, as funk de fino points out(#39), the latter information is merely a pointer towards superficial "popularity".

For all I know Ruppert could be a secret agent of the New World Order Illuminati Frog People but my impression, from following his writings as well as the controversies that have swirled around him, is that he is a highly principled, conscientious individual. He has also avoided being led up the many garden paths that have made the 911 Truth Movement such as an easy target for debunkers. Perhaps this is why, in Ruppert's case, people like yourself resort to crude character assassination in preference to fact-based discussion.

- - - - - - -

For those who prefer fact to stilichoesque fiction here is Mike Ruppert’s blog address from which one can also access the archives of his investigative website, fromthewilderness.com

http://www.mikeruppert.blogspot.com/

His book “Crossing the Rubicon. The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil” is an unsurpassed analysis of the political context of the 911 attacks. In May 2006, it was was added to the Harvard School of Business library.

Buy it and read it!

[MikeW]

Crossing the Rubicon? The work behind claims like "false blips were inserted onto FAA radar screens" and "Cheney was running the 9/11 NORAD exercises", based on no real evidence at all? Yes, buy it. It's the only way you'll understand how insubstantial Ruppert's case really is.

[funk de fino]

What is relevant to the OP is that his and others change of focus away from 911 onto other pressing issues cannot be used as a "barometer for the strength of conspiracy theories" any more than the number of people actively researching, discussing or agitating around the topic can be.

I disagree. If Ruppert or any other serious researcher had anything resembling real facts or evidence of an inside job, they would be on it like a rottweiler and would never let go until justice had been done. The fact they have moved away would suggest he knows there is nothing to be gained by continuing with it.

I would point at DRG who repeats blatant lies and fantasies without caring that he looks dishonest and stupid. He does not care about the truth as long as he makes money. To look serious Ruppert knows he has to come up with something. The fact he cannot explains why he has moved away from this.


At best, as funk de fino points out(#39), the latter information is merely a pointer towards superficial "popularity".

This is for the truther bot morons that would most likely gather at these cess pits of stupidity like LCF etc. Due to LCFilm the 911 TM was gathering strength and popularity until the claims made were very easily pointed out to be bogus.

I repeat again, what have you done towards briniging the perps to justice?

It was in response to this post of yours

I was talking about people (including myself) who, out of a passionate desire for justice, have done a lot about it and take their experience into a broader context.

You are passionate about it are you not?

[Dave Rogers]

Your list of favourite troofer celebrities and faiths from the "other" side suggests that you know which faith I "imagine [you] to follow".

Then please take my word for it that there is a genuine area of uncertainty here. What, exactly, is it that you believe I am taking as a matter of faith? I've listed a series of things that it isn't, and pointed out a few authorities which the truth movement appears to take on faith, when a brief critical examination would easily showe their reasoning to be unfounded and/or fallacious. What, specifically, do you believe are the areas of faith that I adhere to?

Apologies for the derail, but this strikes me as an interesting point. I agree that the truther side of this debate often appears more like a religion than a reasoned conclusion, and that at times, due to the heat of the rivalry, some (though by no means all) debunker responses can take on a similar character. However, your attitude here seems to extend this parallel further; yours strikes me as a similar position to that of a deist who characterises atheism as a different religion, and is unable to conceive of it being anything other than a different entrenched belief system from their own.

If you honestly believe that my comments arise from a starting point of dogma, you should have some idea of the nature of that dogma. I'd like to know exactly what you conceive it to be. As I've said, it certainly isn't unreasoning faith in the Bush administration or the mainstream media, both of which I'm well aware are motivated at least in part by simple self-interest, and both of which are clearly imperfect and fallible. What is it, then?

Dave

[stilicho]

Whatever. Your previous post was an unprincipled attempt to smear Ruppert's character with lies, as is this one, which is also contains pure fiction.

You should read Ruppert more widely, JihadJane. Ruppert truly believes that "globalisation" is just an excuse for killing indigenous peoples. He equates capitalism and free trade with genocide. You don't have to trust me--just read his stuff.


[M]y impression, from following his writings as well as the controversies that have swirled around him, is that he is a highly principled, conscientious individual.

One person's "highly principled, conscientious individual" is another person's "paranoid ex-cop making money off the gullible by promoting untenable conspiracy theories". You are quite correct that Ruppert is LIHOP rather than MIHOP. He is not a controlled demolition guy like most of the popular ones these days.

But his book that I have read for free from a Dutch archive site (no need to put more money into Ruppert's pockets) popularised a number of myths and outright fabrications about the events surrounding 9/11. The whole business about "Buzzy" Krongard is from Ruppert. So are the drug-addled ramblings of Delmart "Mike" Vreeland. Moreover, Ruppert seems to have read half of Brzezinski's one book about geopolitics and (like the people who think the PNAC is a secret cabal out to rule the world by publishing their secret plans on the internet) drew conclusions all out of proportion to the thesis of the book. I still find myself having to remind people that Brzezinski was and is an outspoken opponent of the Bush Administration's decision to invade Iraq. Quite the opposite of what people like Ruppert make him out to be.

So, speaking of besmirching the names of the innocent, what steps has Ruppert taken to apologise to individuals in the military that he names as complicit in "Crossing The Rubicon"? How about an apology to "Buzzy"? Brzezinski? It is exactly conspiracy theorists like Ruppert who have done the whole "truth" movement a great disservice.

[JihadJane]

I disagree. If Ruppert or any other serious researcher had anything resembling real facts or evidence of an inside job, they would be on it like a rottweiler and would never let go until justice had been done. The fact they have moved away would suggest he knows there is nothing to be gained by continuing with it.

Ruppert has indeed been "on it like a rottweiler" and no-one has attempted to debunk his book.

I repeat again, what have you done towards briniging the perps to justice?

It was in response to this post of yours



You are passionate about it are you not?

Your now familar attempts at personalisation are falling on stony ground, my shadow friend!



Apologies for the derail...

Perhaps you could start a new thread. You raise some interesting questions about belief.

You should read Ruppert more widely, JihadJane. Ruppert truly believes that "globalisation" is just an excuse for killing indigenous peoples. He equates capitalism and free trade with genocide. You don't have to trust me--just read his stuff.

I have read Ruppert widely. You are distorting his position on these issues. Your previous crude, fact-free slurs illustrate your agenda clearly.


One person's "highly principled, conscientious individual" is another person's "paranoid ex-cop making money off the gullible by promoting untenable conspiracy theories".

Further crude, inaccurate smear.

You are quite correct that Ruppert is LIHOP rather than MIHOP. He is not a controlled demolition guy like most of the popular ones these days.

Where did I state that he was "LIHOP"? He charged Dick Cheney with orchestrating the 911 "defence" response.

But his book that I have read for free from a Dutch archive site (no need to put more money into Ruppert's pockets) popularised a number of myths and outright fabrications about the events surrounding 9/11. The whole business about "Buzzy" Krongard is from Ruppert. So are the drug-addled ramblings of Delmart "Mike" Vreeland. Moreover, Ruppert seems to have read half of Brzezinski's one book about geopolitics and (like the people who think the PNAC is a secret cabal out to rule the world by publishing their secret plans on the internet) drew conclusions all out of proportion to the thesis of the book. I still find myself having to remind people that Brzezinski was and is an outspoken opponent of the Bush Administration's decision to invade Iraq. Quite the opposite of what people like Ruppert make him out to be.

Further dubious abstractions, misrepresentation, speculation and barely relevant meandering laced with distortion. There are very few factual errors in “Crossing the Rubicon” and it is a very dense book.

It's good to know that it's available for free online. Do you have a link?

So, speaking of besmirching the names of the innocent, what steps has Ruppert taken to apologise to individuals in the military that he names as complicit in "Crossing The Rubicon"? How about an apology to "Buzzy"? Brzezinski? It is exactly conspiracy theorists like Ruppert who have done the whole "truth" movement a great disservice.

I believe this is sometimes called "concern trolling", as if you really care about anyone's service to the "'truth' movement"!

The people in the military that Ruppert has named are free to answer his detailed charges but they have not done so.

[funk de fino]

Ruppert has indeed been "on it like a rottweiler" and no-one has attempted to debunk his book.

Then why did he let go? No evidence, thats why. At least he has been bright enough to see this and pull back from the 911 CT rubbish that is so easily debunked.

Your now familar attempts at personalisation are falling on stony ground, my shadow friend!

You brought it up. What have you done for the cause?

[Dave Rogers]

Perhaps you could start a new thread. You raise some interesting questions about belief.

None of which, I see, you've chosen to answer in this one. Thread drift is normal here, so why don't you reply in this thread and let the moderation team split it out if anyone complains? One of the most absurd statements, to me, that comes from truthers is the characterisation of conclusion as dogma. I know this to be false, and you can't possibly know it to be true. Why do you persist in trying to convince me that my beliefs are other than what they are?

Dave

[funk de fino]

There are very few factual errors in “Crossing the Rubicon” and it is a very dense book.

1st Paragraph, Introduction of the book is junk. Not a great start.

Page 9 about Pearl Harbour is junk.

Chapter one - Motive is junk. Anyone in the oil industry knows this.

Page 45 first line is junk.

His drug connections to Brown and Root are pure specualtion and more junk

Chapter 9 is junk, page 137 sources David Shayler!! Page 148 repeats lies about flying during the no fly ban.

Need I waste anymore time on this novel?

[JihadJane]

Then why did he let go? No evidence, thats why. At least he has been bright enough to see this and pull back from the 911 CT rubbish that is so easily debunked.

He didn't "let go".



Need I waste anymore time on this novel?

How can you debunk a book without having read it?

[funk de fino]

He didn't "let go".

he gave up then?

How can you debunk a book without having read it?

I was debunking your false claim about factual errors. I may read the rest of the book but I would hope it was not as poor as my initial reading so far.

I would not have time to debunk the whole book but it seems to be a pretty easy, if not time consuming, task.

I was talking about people (including myself) who, out of a passionate desire for justice, have done a lot about it and take their experience into a broader context.


nothing then?

[JihadJane]

he gave up then?

Instead of floundering around with random questions I suggest you read Ruppert's book (he's got another one coming out shortly as well) andhis website and find out some history about his life, about which you apparently know nothing.

nothing then?

Why are you so interested in my personal life history? Perhaps you could tell us exactly what your job is in the oil industry, just to get the ball rolling, and what you have done to bring the 911 perpetrators to justice. How relevant would that be?

[JoeyDonuts]

Mike Ruppert's prize inside source/conspiratorial mutual masturbation partner just got sentenced to 336 years for child pornography and a laundry list of other horrifying things.

Of course I suppose this would be a heck of a lot more palatable if you just believe the infinitely corrupt U.S. government made the whole thing up.

...which I don't. Delmart can rot for all I care.

[JihadJane]

Mike Ruppert's prize inside source/conspiratorial mutual masturbation partner

Can you provide a evidence of this alleged masturbation event?

[stilicho]

Originally Posted by stilicho http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4240720#post4240720)
You should read Ruppert more widely, JihadJane. Ruppert truly believes that "globalisation" is just an excuse for killing indigenous peoples. He equates capitalism and free trade with genocide. You don't have to trust me--just read his stuff.

I have read Ruppert widely. You are distorting his position on these issues. Your previous crude, fact-free slurs illustrate your agenda clearly.

You likely are not acquainted with his theories of "population reduction". And he's been peddling this stuff since before 9/11. You just have some catching up to do.

Originally Posted by stilicho http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4240720#post4240720)
You are quite correct that Ruppert is LIHOP rather than MIHOP. He is not a controlled demolition guy like most of the popular ones these days.

Where did I state that he was "LIHOP"? He charged Dick Cheney with orchestrating the 911 "defence" response.

Believing there were 19 Arab hijackers and not believing in the Controlled Demolition "theory" are generally accepted to be the LIHOP stance. You really need to read all the well-researched debunking materials in the links area of this section. That way we don't have to go over all of it again. Ruppert is so consistently wrong in his book that it's no wonder that much of the debunking originated within the "truth" movement itself.


Further dubious abstractions, misrepresentation, speculation and barely relevant meandering laced with distortion. There are very few factual errors in “Crossing the Rubicon” and it is a very dense book.

It's good to know that it's available for free online. Do you have a link?

I can't find the Dutch site right now. You could even try Google reviews. I was pretty sure that Ruppert was dead & buried years ago and has been largely abandoned even by "truthers".

It's funny you should say this: "Further dubious abstractions, misrepresentation, speculation and barely relevant meandering laced with distortion."

The casual reader might think you were offering a justified critique of Ruppert's book because that's exactly what it is. You are too fresh to the "cause" to understand that Ruppert simply scribbled out "Clinton Drug Empire" and crayoned in "Bush-Cheney Drug Empire" in that book. All entirely without any substantiation, literally, through "dubious abstractions, misrepresentation, speculation and barely relevant meandering laced with distortion."

Here's just an example but there are literally dozens of them: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/politics/dontblink.html

Back to the OP, though, so that we aren't hijacking the thread to argue about Ruppert's barely relevant meanderings: It's precisely the dismal interest in 9/11 judging by the dying "truther" forums, along with the decision by most "truther" authors such as Ruppert to return to familiar ground (Peak Oil, CIA "drug lords", "humane" population reduction, the coming collapse of capitalism), that act as very good barometers of the "truth" movement. Read the debunking material before you reply, specifically focusing on Ruppert's specialties: "mysterious put options"; "Zbiginiew Brzezinski"; "Delmart Vreeland"; "standdown order". Those would be a good start.

[JihadJane]

You likely are not acquainted with his theories of "population reduction". And he's been peddling this stuff since before 9/11. You just have some catching up to do.

Do you think the human population can keep growing exponentially? It seems eminently sensible that we should look for ways to reduce our population.


Believing there were 19 Arab hijackers and not believing in the Controlled Demolition "theory" are generally accepted to be the LIHOP stance. You really need to read all the well-researched debunking materials in the links area of this section. That way we don't have to go over all of it again. Ruppert is so consistently wrong in his book that it's no wonder that much of the debunking originated within the "truth" movement itself.

All lovely and vague. "Generally accepted"? When is the next meeting of the central deciding committee? There are all sorts of ways of Making It Happen On Purpose besides "Controlled Demolition".


... I was pretty sure that Ruppert was dead & buried years ago and has been largely abandoned even by "truthers".

Says the self-proclaimed Ruppert expert.

It's funny you should say this: "Further dubious abstractions, misrepresentation, speculation and barely relevant meandering laced with distortion."

The casual reader might think you were offering a justified critique of Ruppert's book because that's exactly what it is. You are too fresh to the "cause" to understand...

Well well! Another debunker psychic! I wish I was "fresh"!

... that Ruppert simply scribbled out "Clinton Drug Empire" and crayoned in "Bush-Cheney Drug Empire" in that book. All entirely without any substantiation, literally, through "dubious abstractions, misrepresentation, speculation and barely relevant meandering laced with distortion."

Here's just an example but there are literally dozens of them: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/politics/dontblink.html

Why should the US covert drug industry be significantly effected by a change of presidency, especially from a Clinton to a Bush?

(Good article, btw.)



Back to the OP, though, so that we aren't hijacking the thread to argue about Ruppert's barely relevant meanderings: It's precisely the dismal interest in 9/11 judging by the dying "truther" forums, along with the decision by most "truther" authors such as Ruppert to return to familiar ground (Peak Oil, CIA "drug lords", "humane" population reduction, the coming collapse of capitalism), that act as very good barometers of the "truth" movement. Read the debunking material before you reply, specifically focusing on Ruppert's specialties: "mysterious put options"; "Zbiginiew Brzezinski"; "Delmart Vreeland"; "standdown order". Those would be a good start.



"Good start"? How many others have you got?

I think you have probably played all the standard cards already.

What's your joker?

(Peak Oil, CIA "drug lords", "humane" population reduction, the coming collapse of capitalism)

You don't believe that capitalism is collapsing?

It is increasingly urgent that we face the disastrous unravelling of global capitalism, with its insane and ecocidal delusions of infinite growth, now, to have any chance of building something sustainable from its toxic ashes.

'Breakdown of the Global Monetary System by Summer 2009':

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21364.htm

"This forecast comes from the Global Europe Anticipation Bulletin. This is the group that forecasted the beginning of the financial crash for September, 2008, and they were spot-on." ( http://carolynbaker.net )

[stilicho]

Do you think the human population can keep growing exponentially? It seems eminently sensible that we should look for ways to reduce our population.
And this dovetails nicely with Ruppert's "theories" of population reduction. I thought a couple of posts ago that you criticised me for saying that's his position. Yet now you're saying it's yours as well? :confused:

Ruppert has specified that the population control programmes he envisions would be managed by Dick Gregory, among others. I couldn't see a "ROTFLMAO" after his statement so I can only assume he's not joking.

You don't believe that capitalism is collapsing?

It is increasingly urgent that we face the disastrous unravelling of global capitalism, with its insane and ecocidal delusions of infinite growth, now, to have any chance of building something sustainable from its toxic ashes.

This is much closer to your typical writing style. Let me spell it out for you: Capitalism is not collapsing.

You actually have a clue to why you are wrong right there in that last paragraph: "delusions of infinite growth". A standard economics text would introduce you to the concepts of the business cycle, supply and demand, and economic expansion and contraction. I will repeat that: "and contraction". If we threw out the ample benefits of capitalism every time there was a contraction, we'd have to invite in a dictator to "help" us about once every six or seven years.

It is frightening to people like Ruppert (and apparently to you too) that individuals are frequently left to their own devices. They buy things when they should be saving. They have kids when they ought to be planning their careers. In short, individuals act far too chaotically to be trusted to important things like running their own lives.

In the name of "sustainability", technological and rational solutions are swept aside in favour of proposals such as "population reduction". Perhaps the Dick Gregory Rehabilitation Institute could be established in each major city and irrational individuals could be taken there for, um, enlightenment.

Incidentally, there is a free copy of Brzezinski's book available here: sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2006/10/119973.pdf (http://forums.randi.org/sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2006/10/119973.pdf). It ought to be required reading for any lingering fans of Mike Ruppert.

[JamesB]

Further dubious abstractions, misrepresentation, speculation and barely relevant meandering laced with distortion. There are very few factual errors in “Crossing the Rubicon” and it is a very dense book.



Oh please, he is a proponent of the whole Ambassador Leo Wanta thing. That is the nuttiest of the nutty. Even morons like David Ray Griffin and Alex Jones were smart enough to stay away from that one.

[stilicho]

Oh please, he is a proponent of the whole Ambassador Leo Wanta thing. That is the nuttiest of the nutty. Even morons like David Ray Griffin and Alex Jones were smart enough to stay away from that one.

I completely forgot about that insanity. Wasn't there also a series of articles Ruppert wrote about being chased through the streets of LA by assassins hired by his ex-wife? I mean, this guy's been active, appearing and disappearing with equal ease, for years now. I find it odd that we're even talking about him any more as he is virtually persona non grata within the "truth" movement.

[JamesB]

I had an e-mail exchange with Steve Alten, who swore by him, and kept on quoting him. He also quoted him in his book. Unfortunately that whole troof week thing didn't work out to well for him.

[funk de fino]

Instead of floundering around with random questions I suggest you read Ruppert's book (he's got another one coming out shortly as well) andhis website and find out some history about his life, about which you apparently know nothing.

The parts I have read so far disprove your claims abiut factual errors, it is strewn with them. I may continue to read the rest at a later date.


Why are you so interested in my personal life history? Perhaps you could tell us exactly what your job is in the oil industry, just to get the ball rolling, and what you have done to bring the 911 perpetrators to justice. How relevant would that be?

Not your personal life, your personal actions that you claimed to have made because you are passionate. I have made no claims to doing anything to bring any perps to justice. I would easily tell you my job, no skin off my nose.

you are passionate about 911 right? Like the protestors in Thailand are passionate about the govt there?

[JihadJane]

And this dovetails nicely with Ruppert's "theories" of population reduction. I thought a couple of posts ago that you criticised me for saying that's his position. Yet now you're saying it's yours as well? :confused:

I said you misrepresented his position.

Ruppert has specified that the population control programmes he envisions would be managed by Dick Gregory, among others. I couldn't see a "ROTFLMAO" after his statement so I can only assume he's not joking.



This is much closer to your typical writing style. Let me spell it out for you: Capitalism is not collapsing.

You actually have a clue to why you are wrong right there in that last paragraph: "delusions of infinite growth". A standard economics text would introduce you to the concepts of the business cycle, supply and demand, and economic expansion and contraction. I will repeat that: "and contraction". If we threw out the ample benefits of capitalism every time there was a contraction, we'd have to invite in a dictator to "help" us about once every six or seven years.

It is frightening to people like Ruppert (and apparently to you too) that individuals are frequently left to their own devices. They buy things when they should be saving. They have kids when they ought to be planning their careers. In short, individuals act far too chaotically to be trusted to important things like running their own lives.

In the name of "sustainability", technological and rational solutions are swept aside in favour of proposals such as "population reduction". Perhaps the Dick Gregory Rehabilitation Institute could be established in each major city and irrational individuals could be taken there for, um, enlightenment.

Incidentally, there is a free copy of Brzezinski's book available here: sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2006/10/119973.pdf (http://forums.randi.org/sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2006/10/119973.pdf). It ought to be required reading for any lingering fans of Mike Ruppert.

No-one can predict the future but the current downturn is almost certainly not temporary but permanent. The party's over. The global economic system has become dependent on an ever-increasing energy supply. The energy supply has stopped increasing.


You didn't say whether or not you think the continued exponential growth of our population is sustainable. If you don't and, as apparently intelligent person I assume you don't, what are your proposals for reducing our heavy load on the planet? ROTFLMAO?

It's interesting that you are a fan of Dr World Domination. It's sad to see he has Obama's ear. Let's hope that the US' economic collapse prevents it from committing and sponsoring further violent atrocities around the globe. Not likely, unfortunately. A dying beast is very dangerous.

Thanks for the link to Brzezinski's book.

Good to see that one of your movement ‘s premier gossip columnists has come to your rescue with some more attempts at character assassination and some characteristically inconsequential titbits. You implied, above, you had lots more cards up your sleeve. Where are they?

[JoeyDonuts]

Can you provide a evidence of this alleged masturbation event?

No. I don't have tissue samples or photographs of alleged frottage.

What I was alluding to is more of a mental mutual masturbation. Their relationship is interesting - they really fed one another's needs. Vreeland, being a career con man, needs people to believe the outlandish idiocy he spews at every turn. (Sad that his sociopathy extended to the point of victimizing children. Makes me sick to think about it.) Ruppert is a man who sees a ghost in every shadow, so to speak. He needs to see that those ghosts in the shadows are pulling the strings and connecting the dots for him, and D. Vreeland was more than willing to fulfill that particular role. Of course, book sales and the almighty dollar have a thing or two to do with this as well.

[stilicho]

No-one can predict the future but the current downturn is almost certainly not temporary but permanent. The party's over. The global economic system has become dependent on an ever-increasing energy supply. The energy supply has stopped increasing.

Which is it? "No-one can predict the future...?" Or: "The party's over." Your final three statements are full of certainty while your introductory statement is not.


You didn't say whether or not you think the continued exponential growth of our population is sustainable. If you don't and, as apparently intelligent person I assume you don't, what are your proposals for reducing our heavy load on the planet? ROTFLMAO?

Your first statement is misleading. Global population growth rates are declining rather than accelerating. The growth rate appears to have peaked almost four decades ago. In specific regions, in fact, the growth rate has begun to turn negative.

We can safely put Mike Ruppert and Dick Gregory back in their pens.

It's interesting that you are a fan of Dr World Domination. It's sad to see he has Obama's ear. Let's hope that the US' economic collapse prevents it from committing and sponsoring further violent atrocities around the globe. Not likely, unfortunately. A dying beast is very dangerous.

Anyone with even a sophomore year political science course under their belts would have been exposed to Brzezinski, JihadJane. I am fairly ambivalent towards him as both a political advisor and a political scientist. I don't buy the "heartland/geopolitics" concept and Brzezinski has had a very difficult time convincing anyone of its worth. It's been some time since I've read Geoffrey Barraclough or Fernand Braudel, but I found their understanding of the sea as a "geopolitical unit" to be far better than all this "heartland" stuff. After all, Venice in the 1400's and Britain in the 1800's wielded authority all out of proportion to their land area and neither of them held any territory in the "heartland". One could similarly argue that the focus of Roman authority at the beginning of the common era was the Mediterranean Sea and that hegemony over large areas of land--even within the confines of Europe--was never their goal nor within the realm of possibility.

On the other hand, it is obviously welcome that your new President is seeking foreign policy advice from someone with experience and wisdom, even if I disagree with some of his conclusions. As you will see after reading his book, he has no illusions about world domination for the US whatsoever. Carefully cropped quotes from that specific work have been pasted onto the internet and employed heavily by people like Ruppert to sustain an illusion.

Good to see that one of your movement ‘s premier gossip columnists has come to your rescue with some more attempts at character assassination and some characteristically inconsequential titbits. You implied, above, you had lots more cards up your sleeve. Where are they?

You might want to start a thread on the coming economic collapse in the appropriate area of the forum. I don't think this is the place for them.

You started talking about some sort of card game. I think that was because I gently suggested that you read all of the debunking material provided at the top of this section before continuing to recommend a book that has been challenged within the "truth movement" itself.

I possibly owe you somewhat of an apology, too. It appears, after reading a blog operated by a "truther", that Mike Ruppert has changed his mind about a few things he wrote in Crossing the Rubicon. He is no longer sure that the aircraft were hijacked by Arabs, nor is he certain that there weren't some sort of demolition charges installed in the World Trade Center. This is typical of an opportunist. Remember, he claimed to be an investigative journalist, then that he only took some courses in writing while he was a cop. Remember, too, that he acknowledges widely that he knew Vreeland was a con artist, admitted that some of what Vreeland told him were probably lies, and then lovingly devoted two full chapters to his testimony in Crossing the Rubicon anyhow.

Those two examples are simply emblematic of why anything Ruppert writes ought to be taken with a grain of salt.

[Thunder]

this thread has totally been derailed. what is it supposed to be about again?

oh yeah, truther websites. they seem to be hobbling. why is that?

[twinstead]

this thread has totally been derailed. what is it supposed to be about again?

oh yeah, truther websites. they seem to be hobbling. why is that?

From reading this thread, it's because most truthers are either in it for the money, or have an ideological stake in the conspiracy. Facts appear to be second fiddle. That would hobble just about anything.

[Thunder]

I think..believe it or not...truthers are getting bored...and are going out to play softball. good for them, i say.

=)

[Homeland Insurgency]

Are web forums a good barometer for the strength of 9-11 conspiracy theories?

This one is. Thanks.

[Thunder]

well, lets follow that argument for a minute. there are maybe, 4 truthers who post at JREF. there are..um....thousands and thousands of JREF members.....almost all are not truthers.

so yes, in that way, JREF is a great barometer for the strength of 9-11 Conspiracy Theories.

Thanks man!!

;)

[JihadJane]

well, lets follow that argument for a minute. there are maybe, 4 truthers who post at JREF. there are..um....thousands and thousands of JREF members.....almost all are not truthers.

so yes, in that way, JREF is a great barometer for the strength of 9-11 Conspiracy Theories.

Thanks man!!

;)

I imagine there are few twoofers posting on lovely JREF for the same reason that one finds few atheists preaching at gatherings of evangelists.


(Sad that his sociopathy extended to the point of victimizing children. Makes me sick to think about it.)

You seem to like thinking about it quite a lot. Perhaps you enjoy making yourself feel sick!


Which is it? "No-one can predict the future...?" Or: "The party's over." Your final three statements are full of certainty while your introductory statement is not.

"The party's over" because the era of cheap, abundant energy is over. How humanity will navigate the consequences is unpredictable.

An economic system that is dependent on growth for survival is very unlikely to survive resource depletion.


Your first statement is misleading. Global population growth rates are declining rather than accelerating. The growth rate appears to have peaked almost four decades ago. In specific regions, in fact, the growth rate has begun to turn negative.

Thanks for the correction. Unfortunately fossil fuels have allowed our population to massively overshoot the natural carrying capacity of the Earth.

We can safely put Mike Ruppert and Dick Gregory back in their pens.

That might be a little premature.

("The pen is mightier than the sword") ;)



Anyone with even a sophomore year political science course under their belts would have been exposed to Brzezinski, JihadJane. I am fairly ambivalent towards him as both a political advisor and a political scientist. I don't buy the "heartland/geopolitics" concept and Brzezinski has had a very difficult time convincing anyone of its worth. It's been some time since I've read Geoffrey Barraclough or Fernand Braudel, but I found their understanding of the sea as a "geopolitical unit" to be far better than all this "heartland" stuff. After all, Venice in the 1400's and Britain in the 1800's wielded authority all out of proportion to their land area and neither of them held any territory in the "heartland". One could similarly argue that the focus of Roman authority at the beginning of the common era was the Mediterranean Sea and that hegemony over large areas of land--even within the confines of Europe--was never their goal nor within the realm of possibility.

Resource-hungry empires have to keep expanding or they die. Infinite expansion is not possible so all empires eventually implode. The US empire appears to be a fast track, short-lived empire but has, unfortunately, been no less destructive than its longer-lived predecessors.

On the other hand, it is obviously welcome that your new President is seeking foreign policy advice from someone with experience and wisdom, even if I disagree with some of his conclusions. As you will see after reading his book, he has no illusions about world domination for the US whatsoever. Carefully cropped quotes from that specific work have been pasted onto the internet and employed heavily by people like Ruppert to sustain an illusion.

I'll let you know when I've read it but the political analysis you have offered so far does not give me confidence that your review is accurate. You veer wildly between apparently sober academic contemplation and crude, fact-free, smearing.



You might want to start a thread on the coming economic collapse in the appropriate area of the forum. I don't think this is the place for them.

You started talking about some sort of card game. I think that was because I gently suggested that you read all of the debunking material provided at the top of this section before continuing to recommend a book that has been challenged within the "truth movement" itself.

I started talking about card games because you said "for a start" and then played all your cards at once.

I possibly owe you somewhat of an apology, too. It appears, after reading a blog operated by a "truther", that Mike Ruppert has changed his mind about a few things he wrote in Crossing the Rubicon. He is no longer sure that the aircraft were hijacked by Arabs, nor is he certain that there weren't some sort of demolition charges installed in the World Trade Center. This is typical of an opportunist. Remember, he claimed to be an investigative journalist, then that he only took some courses in writing while he was a cop. Remember, too, that he acknowledges widely that he knew Vreeland was a con artist, admitted that some of what Vreeland told him were probably lies, and then lovingly devoted two full chapters to his testimony in Crossing the Rubicon anyhow.

How does doing "some courses in writing while he was a cop" disqualify Ruppert from claiming to be an investigative journalist (assuming he actually did claim this)?

It's a while since I read "Crossing the Rubiocn, The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil" but, as far as I remember, Ruppert accepted the possibility of planted explosives in his book but saw pursuing the topic as fruitless because, in the light of his law enforcement experience and because of what happened to the evidence in the cases of the Kennedy assassinations, he concluded that physical evidence is easy to manipulate even when it appears conclusive and damning. I'm not sure how long or even if he accepts the possibility that the aircraft were hijacked by other means/people than asserted in the popular al Qaeda legend. Where has he expressed an opinion on this?

Those two examples are simply emblematic of why anything Ruppert writes ought to be taken with a grain of salt.

These two (4?) dubious examples are emblematic of nothing except your own desire to find a plausible ad hominem with which to discredit Ruppert's substantial charges. Everything that is written about 911 on all sides of the argument should be taken with a grain of salt. That's what people on this site call "critical thinking". What you are doing, however, is attempted personality assassination. Ruppert may or may not have been ("lovingly"?)mistaken about Vreeland but Vreeland's criminality is not necessarily relevant to his credibility as a source. Intelligence agencies frequently use criminals as assets precisely because they are so easy to discredit should they be exposed or go AWOL.

[funk de fino]

"The party's over" because the era of cheap, abundant energy is over. How humanity will navigate the consequences is unpredictable.

Your arguments get funnier by the minute.

[A W Smith]

Originally Posted by JJ
"The party's over" because the era of cheap, abundant energy is over. How humanity will navigate the consequences is unpredictable.

Your arguments get funnier by the minute.

they sure do
http://lightbulbs.org/alternative-energy-sources

[T.A.M.]

the first valid point from a truther in years, and it is on a topic unrelated to 9/11.

Yes, the age of cheap abundant fuel, for which we have the commercialized capacity/technology to harness/utilize is indeed over.

How we choose to deal with that is currently in motion. Only time will tell.

TAM:)

[stilicho]

II'll let you know when I've read it but the political analysis you have offered so far does not give me confidence that your review is accurate. You veer wildly between apparently sober academic contemplation and crude, fact-free, smearing.

Tell you what. To avoid further derailing Parky's thread, once you've finished the book, start a thread detailing how Brzezinski's book supports the thesis that 9/11 was an inside job and I will take the opposite stance.

[dudalb]

the first valid point from a truther in years, and it is on a topic unrelated to 9/11.

Yes, the age of cheap abundant fuel, for which we have the commercialized capacity/technology to harness/utilize is indeed over.

How we choose to deal with that is currently in motion. Only time will tell.

TAM:)

Where JJ goes off the track is in her anti-Capitalist rant. The record shows that Socialists countries are just as dependent on Cheap Energy as Capitalist ones.
I would like to know what exactly JJ would replace the Market with. She seems to favor some kind of return to a medieval level of economy..with all it's benefits..life span of 30 Years,disease, ,etc....but it is hard to tell with her woozy philosophy.
There is also the fact that the energy problem seems not to be one of the major causes of the present economic downturn. It's is a factor, but not a major one.