Dylan Wins a Battle, Do You Who's Want to Win the War?

[Darth Rotor]

Luke T has referred to JREF forums as Whoville. He is right, and I wonder which of you Who's can yell loud enough to get the elephant to hear you. (For those missing the ref, see the children's story "Horton Hears a Who.")

The elephant here is anyone beyond the blogosphere and the internet. One such elephant was Rosie O'Donnell: she heard a Who on another flower, be it Jones or Dylan, and having heard that little Who yell, she changed what she was doing. Rather than comment on something else, she used her pulpit to spread their slander. Richard Branson has now chosen likewise, via his airline, to do something similar.

I admire Gravy for leading the counterattack against The Big Lie, and likewise MarkyX. This conflict between Slander and Reason is not "the battle of the first salvo," but it is a war of attrition, an Information Age Verdun if you like.

Dylan and his gang of pond scum have won a battle in the Information War by harnessing the credibility of Virgin Atlantic and Branson, international star billionaire and balloon pilot, and public mouthpieces like Charlie Sheen.

IMO, the key catalyst for this successful spread of slander is a shared antipathy for GW Bush and his administration. "The enemy of my enemy can be my ally." What many decry as a root anti Semitism in the LC movement is being overlooked in the battle of images by LC's allies, much as pecadillos by various Third World despots was overlooked by US governments for the fifty year fight against Communism.

To fight and win a war, first recognize the war for what it is, then fight it. You can't fight and win a war if you don't know what war you are fighting.

LOOSE CHANGE 2:

--snip--
Everyone's talking about it so we thought you'd like to see the film that started out as a home movie and became one of the most downloaded documentaries of all time. Was 9/11 a government set up? Were the twin towers brought down in a controlled explosion for an insurance payday? These questions and more are posed in this controversial film, seen by millions, derided by many. Now it's your chance to make up your own mind.
Just asking questions for a nickel, Alex. :p By updating Goebbel's theory of the Big Lie, you can see the page Dylan takes out of his book.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State/(Political Movement) can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State(Political Movement) to use all of its powers to repress(discredit or marginalize) dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State/Political Movement.”
His (or perhaps Jones') harnessing the word and symbol of "truth" in the "truth movement" is an extension of Goebbel's idea on misdirection.

Dylan has gotten his lie spread beyond the internet/blogosphere. He's gone mainstream, and is aiming at a Michael Moore level of currency for his propaganda film. Do not mistake if for anything other than what it is: propaganda, which is very close to advertising and marketing. :cool:

One of our resident marketing experts, Teek, makes an excellent point (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2568039&postcount=60)here that seems to be lost on some JREF Who's.
By showing this film, Virgin lend it their own credibility, which is huge and international. There is a purchased bond of trust between Virgin and its customers, in which the customers make the assumption that they will not be lied to by their service provider. If Virgin show this film on their flights, they are endorsing it.
Whatever "victories" are being won by pounding the idiots here in Whoville, or at the LC forums, are inconsequential, since in the real war, the war of public images, the wit and competence of Team Gravy (if I may so name the core of competent folk who rationally debunk LC slander) hasn't been heard coherently enough. Gravy's Grunts?

I see the difference as similar th the contrast between the Shia Mahdi Army in Iraq, and the US. At the core of the movement, the passion is on Dylan's side. He's got a lot of "want to" in his fight. This is his all consuming passion, his chance to make his mark on the World. For most JREF participants, this is a hobby or pastime, though I cannot but applaud the mountain of manhours that Gravy, RMackey, Gumboot, rgwinn, MarkyX, apathoid, Architect, beechnut, pomeroo and dozens of others have put into the anti slander campaign.

Maddox heard of this fight, which is where I heard of it and why I showed up here, but Maddox is, for all that his book got published, not mainstream. Pomeroo, you are as close to mainstream with your radio show. You too can make a mark, or a bigger mark, on this world.

A few flowers full of Whos have been heard from.

How is the anti slander message, the counter propaganda campaign, to go mainstream, to reengage the battle and to win?

Do you really trust anyone who can be painted as a Bush Shill? If O'Reilly craps on Loose Change on his show, will anyone care?

Do you want to win this war, or not?

How bad do you want to win? Right now, Dylan shows me a lot of will to win.

Back of the napkin strategy session to follow. Ron's debates, Gravy's debates, formatted in video medium are a good step forward. But let's look at fighting fire with fire. Debate doesn't always attract a large audience.

1. Package a product. There is enough info on this forum from the last year to collate and edit into a book.

2. Edit it.

3. Find a publisher.

4. Go to print.

5. Rinse and repeat with a short film version (30 or 60 minutes ) Screw Loose Change is a good start. How far is that from a polished product that can be pedalled to a news or media outlet? Is there no reason for CNN or Discovery, or PBS, to show a counter documentary, one based more in fact that in fiction?

6. Get it on a TV network, or other commercial distro.

This requires some marketing, and some salesmanship. And to motivate it, passion. A critical bridging message is to eliminate any and all hint of Bush Administration apologia.

The viral marketing method of using the internet to spread the counter slander has a strong foundation, with some goodly folks who stand for the truth over slander. But it isn't enough, if the fight is to be won.

There are hundreds of posters and lurkers here who know people. You know media people, you know editors, you know publishers. The propaganda war is fought and won in the mainstream media as well as here in the blogosphere, and in the hundreds of little Whovilles on the internet.

You can't win the fight at Zama if you don't get your soldiers to the battlefield. It's a multidimensional battlefield, with words, pictures, and images as the soldiers and weapons. In the military, you might call it PsyOps.

The Anti Slander forces have as weapons facts and intelligent analysis. These need to get to the battlefield -- or you can concede defeat and leave the field to your enemy. Part of getting to the battlefield is in packaging.

Are you willing to rely on hope as a method, the way Rummy relied on it in Iraq, to win this Information War? Do you want to count on Dylan and Jones as being Cheney's Dead Enders? Do you want to count on them self destructing?

Or, do you want to fight to win?

As the old instructors used to yell at us in SERE school: Are you sincere? I know some of you are, based on the man hours you have put into crafting argument here.

Is this a war worth fighting, and winning, or is it, in the end, more internet wanking?

Look at the thousands of man hours represented in the collective effort, and how effective James Randi's battle against fraud has been due to his passion and tireless effort.

Is this to be left in Whoville, or do you want the world to hear your voices?

DR

[e^n]

I actually pretty much totally agree with this, and I'm in the process of collecting as much high quality footage as I can so I can start producing videos about 911.

[R.Mackey]

Interesting proposal, but there's two counter-points I'd like you to consider:

1. "Loose Change" in its various incarnations has already been seen by an enormous amount of people. Heck, I first heard about it on a scenario paintball forum, before ever coming to the JREF. Despite this, the Idiot Movement is extremely small and shows every sign of dwindling.

The new Virgin Airlines event will not make a big difference in terms of its reach, or its credibility. What it will do, however, is reach a different group, namely people who can afford and have a reason to travel abroad. I don't see this group being more susceptible to its lies than Internet rabble.

2. With every step the lie takes into the mainstream, the odds of decisive action being taken against it increase.

I'm talking lawsuits. There's really no other way to stamp out this garbage. I'm not convinced that having "Loose Change" fester in the underground of the Internet, largely unchallenged, is better than giving it public exposure.

The General Public is not going to be motivated to do anything about these people until they become an irritant. This new announcement is the beginning, since apparently Avery has underwhelmed us all with his ability to get his drivel into theaters -- how long has he been promising?? Think of Intelligent Design as a model: The subversion of public schools had been underway for decades, but once it reached a threshold of actionability, it was quickly sent packing. So it will be here as well.

While it galls me that VA has probably paid Louder Than Words LLC for this showing, the more they get paid, the more likely a slandered victim will have a case and the motivation to get some payback.

I'm glad you appreciated some of my efforts. I don't really care what idiots believe. My entire intent has been to ensure that if anyone wants to know what really happened and who's really telling the truth, that information is available. The Idiot Movement doesn't want to know the answer to either question, and that's their problem. We can't make them care and we never will. But whenever anyone wants to take them on in court, it won't take long to build an airtight case.

They declared this war, and they escalate at their peril.

[~enigma~]

Lots of stuff
So you think that LC and Virgin should be silenced because they do not share your morals?

[gumboot]

Excellent post...

If I may potificate for a moment...

One of our weaknesses, I see, is the "debunking" nature of our work. We are reactionary. CTers present false information, and we correct it.

The reason these CTs find fertile ground is due to ignorance. Most people know little or nothing about 9/11. A percentage of people will consider all information, cross-reference, and basically do what we do, to determine truth.

However the overwhelming majority of people will simply accept THE FIRST VERSION OF EVENTS THEY ARE PRESENTED WITH.

And herein lies our problem. By being reactionary, people will never get our information first. They will only ever discover us AFTER being exposed to the CTs. Some will reject the CTs out of hand, some will investigate further, or at least modify their view if exposed to our work. However a large group will swallow the first version they come across and refuse to change their view.

We cannot win this battle by following behind CTers like a little puppy and correcting their errors.

The only way to succeed is to get to the ignorant first - by presenting an ACCURATE version of what happened, in detail.

To this end I proposed we collectively produced such a document (a huge undertaking). However progress on this ceased when some of us questioned the validity of doing this via the JREF forums. I requested clarity on the issue from the moderators, but received no response.

Much as I don't want to admit it, DR has a solid point here.

We might like to think that mainstream success with programmes like LC will simply result in their mainstream destruction via debunkings from academia and scientists. But the sad fact is past experiences suggests this isn't true at all.

The unfortunate reality is if programmes like this get mainstream release literally millions of people will swallow it - unless someone else has remedied their ignorance before they see the programme.

Indeed, the very fact that the documentary has mainstream release will count for a lot of people accepting it.

having said that, it's not all doom and gloom. There has been mainstream exposure to more accurate depictions of 9/11, in a big way. Two that leap out at me are United 93 and World Trade Center. Both of these films are very accurate, and more importantly have had huge mainstream appeal. Yes, they're works of fiction, but we well know that doesn't mean a lot in the world of mainstream media.

-Gumboot

[chipmunk stew]

I think a focused piece on building 7 would go a long way.

[gumboot]

I think a focused piece on building 7 would go a long way.


We're sort of stuck hanging out for the NIST report on it.

-Gumboot

[Miragememories]

As they say; "the proof is in the pudding"..or is it "in the gravy?"

MM

[chipmunk stew]

We're sort of stuck hanging out for the NIST report on it.

-Gumboot

But there's a lot that could be done ahead of time. Interviews with witnesses & experts, and collecting footage, for example. I would suggest that most of the emphasis be on establishing that everyone expected the building to collapse, rather than on what the precise collapse mechanism was (although this should certainly be explored towards the end.)

[ConspiRaider]

Maybe I'll just have to do a movie or documentary on this right out here in Tinsel Town. Host it myself, get experts on, or something.

After all, it is TV and MovieLand, is Tinsel Town.

And I was on commercial radio as a DJ.

Plus I was in a Friends episode and that is enough to qualify ANYONE!

I've mentioned that Ron and Gravy should get together and do some videos but now I'm warning them: IFFN Y'ALL DON'T THEN I MIGHT GONNA!

[Pardalis]

As they say; "the proof is in the pudding"..or is it "in the gravy?"

MM

Well it's certainly not where you get your groceries, go to another supermarket.

[Civilized Worm]

One such elephant was Rosie O'Donnell


Hehehehe!

[Darth Rotor]

So you think that LC and Virgin should be silenced because they do not share your morals?
You completely miss the point. You cannot have a public debate if you don't see both sets of argument, or in the case of LC and Jones, slander.

What has "my morals" to do with this conversation? Personal attack removed.

Their words are indeed being heard, and my point in the OP, Personal attack removed., is that the specific counter to their slander needs to be heard loud and clear. If they were speaking the truth, I'd be the biggest defender of Dylan Avery and Alex Jones. Since they deal in slander, I cannot be their advocate.

It isn't a matter of silence, enigma, it is a matter of the war of ideas, symbols, and images fought out in the public arena.

Given your inability to grasp what slingblade and Teek were trying to explain to you about implied credibility as a marketing method, you err in speaking up around adults, child, unless your aim is to reaffirm an old adage:

Personal attack removed.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Maybe I'll just have to do a movie or documentary on this right out here in Tinsel Town. Host it myself, get experts on, or something.

After all, it is TV and MovieLand, is Tinsel Town.

And I was on commercial radio as a DJ.

Plus I was in a Friends episode and that is enough to qualify ANYONE!

I've mentioned that Ron and Gravy should get together and do some videos but now I'm warning them: IFFN Y'ALL DON'T THEN I MIGHT GONNA!
Why not both, Conspi? You are not a Bush fan, at all, which makes your position vis a vis "truthers" unassailably non establishment.

You have built in street cred. ;) Plus, you know people in film and distribution. (You also have a gift with words.)

DR

[Pardalis]

You made a good point Darth. But there are mainstream resources against this propaganda, there's already PM's Debunking the Myths (http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Myths-Conspiracy-Theories/dp/158816635X), and of course the different reports.

The problem with twoofers (the same goes for other denialists), is that they'll keep spewing their nonsense and misinformation regardless of the amount of arguments and debunking we do.

You can't really fight people who deny reality.

But you're right Darth that we should make more publicly available debunkings of this idiocy for the greater public. But to fight them with their own tactics would be a waste of time, and give them much more credibility than they deserve (which is none).

What we should do is promote critical thinking, promote what the JREF stands for, educate people to think rationally and make them aware of the denialist's tactics.

[ConspiRaider]

Why not both, Conspi? You are not a Bush fan, at all, which makes your position vis a vis "truthers" unassailably non establishment.

You have built in street cred. ;) Plus, you know people in film and distribution. (You also have a gift with words.)

DR
Most kind, DR.

I'll have to do some noodling on this...

[JimBenArm]

Most kind, DR.

I'll have to do some noodling on this...
You go noodling? You dive into muddy pools of water to pull channel catfish out of their lairs with your bare hands?
You's one manly man!

[ConspiRaider]

You go noodling? You dive into muddy pools of water to pull channel catfish out of their lairs with your bare hands?
You's one manly man!
:D Weird thing is I only went fishing once and caught a big catfish (with the niblets corn on the hooky deal that you'd drag along the bottom).

It was a big catfish, two feet or something. So my buddy made me hold it out so he could get a pic. I had to hold it in one hand, by that nice slotted handle that catfish have under the jaw. But all I could think of was getting it back in the water so the friggin' thing wouldn't die on me.

"Snap the picture Lew! Thing's turning blue!"

"No, he's fine, no problem. C'mon, hold it out and smile!"

"Smile? This dude just called his barracuda - I mean his barrister - to have the will changed! Take the lousy picture, will ya?"

"Quit bellyachin' and hold it out there! Yer a man, you beat a fish! Be proud!"

"But his whiskers are droopin'! His gills are moving, look Lew! Lemme listen... CHRISSAKES! He's doing the Act Of Contrition deal!!! It's curtains Lew!!!"

Anyway I got the thing back in the lake before it croaked, and that was the last time I ever fished. But I'm still a manly man, I checked.

[R.Mackey]

But there's a lot that could be done ahead of time. Interviews with witnesses & experts, and collecting footage, for example. I would suggest that most of the emphasis be on establishing that everyone expected the building to collapse, rather than on what the precise collapse mechanism was (although this should certainly be explored towards the end.)

To Darth and enigma, use the "Ignore" feature, please.

So thinking about the OP a little bit longer, I have the following suggestion:

Don't make Yet Another Movie about Sept. 11th.
Make a show about the nature of the Idiot Movement itself.

There are already plenty of outlets describing what really happened -- the NIST report, the 9/11 Commission (in comic book (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/15/AR2006071501044.html) form even), news shows such as Frontline and Robert MacNeil's recent America at a Crossroads, endless books, and mainstream movies such as World Trade Center and United 93. It's been done.

It appears that, what's desired, is a direct response to the Idiot Movement themselves, rather than a broad informational resource. The single most effective product our little circle has produced to date, in my opinion, is the "9-11 Deniers Speak" piece created by MarkyX. The public already has all the information about what really happened available. What they lack is a way to quickly gauge the background of the opposition. If Steven Jones calls himself a physicist, most people will take that as red that he's a responsible researcher, and not a cad who passed off his website as a "peer-reviewed journal." Hardly anyone I've ever met has heard of Alex Jones, and even those who have can't fathom the sheer insanity he spews.

So here's what I'd propose, if we feel like going ahead with a Product:


Video talks, the rest walks. Although the video could be the final summary of a larger, concerted effort.
Study the origins of the conspiracy theories rather than focusing on What Really Happened. We can drop in bits of science as part of our explanation, but this way we distinguish our product from the others.
Avoid foaming at the mouth. Keep our cool and use humour liberally. Remember, the majority of Troothers are just misguided or paranoid, and they need our help, not our derision.
The key points to expose are the things that make the Idiot Movement so reprehensible. I'm talking about the well-documented connections to neo-Nazis, abuse of victims, and profiteering in that order.
Interviews with people who have been abused, misquoted, or vilified juxtaposed against the claims of Loose Change et. al. would be quite enlightening. I'm thinking of Val McClatchey, Silverstein if you can contact him, misquotes of FDNY personnel, etc.
The material from "Hardfire" is excellent. Also, Ron Wieck had proposed doing a panel session of debunkers at some point. I reiterate my suggestion to set up this session at a TAM or similar function. This could be additional background material.
Try to cover several dimensions rather than just hitting "Loose Change." As we cover multiple videos and organizations, we will naturally diffuse slightly into other conspiracy areas, e.g. the NWO, Bohemian Grove, etc. While we need not treat these thoroughly, once viewers understand the Sept. 11th denial is just another facet of the larger conspiracy mindset, our work is done.


I'm an engineer. This is my initial attempt at a project plan. If we want to do this, we need a strong product manager, and that should be the next order of business.

Other thoughts?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Something I feel is relevant to this thread (which by the way, I think is an excellent thread and deserves serious discussion):
They are implanting the idea that their ideas are on equal footing, have equal value, and are in similar standing in the relevant fields of expertise. This behavior was summed up nicely in Daniel C. Dennett's essay The Hoax of Intelligent Design and How It Was Perpetrated in the book Intelligent Thought: Science Versus the Intelligent Design Movement pgs 39-41Quote:
The campaigners for intelligent design have become adept at feeding off the difficulty of this idea, by starting with a straightforward counterclaim and then retreating into the fog of technical confusion when their counterclaims are refuted. For instance, the philosopher William Dembski, one of the two most prominent ideologues of the ID movement, has attempted to argue that a particular sort of design product does require an intelligent designer, and that the designs found in nature include such products, but his various expressions of the argument to date, which depend on some rather abstruse mathematical formulations, have been show to be technically flawed. Few, if any, theoreticians give his project any hope of success, since the flaws they have uncovered are central to his thesis.
...
How can non-scientists assess their own judgement in this case? Not by trusting wishful thinking. If you can just see that Dembski must be onto something even thought you can't follow the mathematics, you are falling right into the trap. ... Perhaps, then, you should wait with bated breath on the sidelines while the experts duke it out in the scientific arena. This would be fine, except that Dembski has left the playing field and is appealing directly to the spectators, instead of contending with the scientists on their own terms.
In his trade books, magazine articles, and popular lectures, Dembski makes it appear that there is scientific controversy - but there isn't, as we can see by comparing his path with others. ... Instead, he and his cohorts use a ploy that works like this. First you misuse or misdescribe some scientist's work, provoking an angry rebuttal. Then, instead of dealing forthrightly with the charges leveled, you cite the rebuttal as evidence there is a "controversy" to teach.
Note that the trick is content-free. You can use it on any topic. ... And here is the delicious part:You can often exploit the very technicality of the issues to your own advantage, counting on most of us to miss the point amid all the difficult details. ... Clever! What looks to scientists - and is - a knockout objection by Dr. Schneider is portrayed to almost everyone else as ridiculous hairsplitting.

[Darth Rotor]

To Darth and enigma, use the "Ignore" feature, please.

?
Nope. That is a coward's tactic.

I'm done bickering with him, and will remain on topic for the remainder of the thread. Thanks.

DR

[Hourglassmemory]

2. With every step the lie takes into the mainstream, the odds of decisive action being taken against it increase.

I'm talking lawsuits. There's really no other way to stamp out this garbage. I'm not convinced that having "Loose Change" fester in the underground of the Internet, largely unchallenged, is better than giving it public exposure.



I agree. However, all the paranoids will see this as the police force under the power of the New World Order making their move and silencing the ones 'who know'. They'll be floundering as they go into court. Then some other wacko sees it on Tv and gets motivated to shoot the judge, who in their minds, is also under the control of the New World Order.
I see CT's as having a very high risk of turning into serial killers, specially the "Alex Jones fan" type of C'Theorist.

[Darth Rotor]

Right after his immature stupidity I did that's why you don't see any other response from me to the immature guy :)
You drew first blood, and now you cry? Fascinating.

I suggest you send me a PM that describes:

My Morals, and your basis for raising that red herring. You made it personal with me. No free pass for you.

What this topic has to do with "my morals."

How a counter to LC "silences" the slandering bastidges of the Truth movement. We have bickered here enough.

We can continue a discussion privately, and perhaps find a common ground, or not.

DR

[defaultdotxbe]

I agree. However, all the paranoids will see this as the police force under the power of the New World Order making their move and silencing the ones 'who know'. They'll be floundering as they go into court. Then some other wacko sees it on Tv and gets motivated to shoot the judge, who in their minds, is also under the control of the New World Order.
I see CT's as having a very high risk of turning into serial killers, specially the "Alex Jones fan" type of C'Theorist.
its really heads i win tails you lose with the kooks

if there is an active debunking community, they say that the establishment percieves them as a threat, so they must be on the right track

if there is no debunking they claim that no one can debunk them, so they must be right

you seem the same with creationists

[ref]

So thinking about the OP a little bit longer, I have the following suggestion:

Don't make Yet Another Movie about Sept. 11th.
Make a show about the nature of the Idiot Movement itself.

There are already plenty of outlets describing what really happened -- the NIST report, the 9/11 Commission (in comic book (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/15/AR2006071501044.html) form even), news shows such as Frontline and Robert MacNeil's recent America at a Crossroads, endless books, and mainstream movies such as World Trade Center and United 93. It's been done.

It appears that, what's desired, is a direct response to the Idiot Movement themselves, rather than a broad informational resource. The single most effective product our little circle has produced to date, in my opinion, is the "9-11 Deniers Speak" piece created by MarkyX. The public already has all the information about what really happened available. What they lack is a way to quickly gauge the background of the opposition. If Steven Jones calls himself a physicist, most people will take that as red that he's a responsible researcher, and not a cad who passed off his website as a "peer-reviewed journal." Hardly anyone I've ever met has heard of Alex Jones, and even those who have can't fathom the sheer insanity he spews.

So here's what I'd propose, if we feel like going ahead with a Product:

Video talks, the rest walks. Although the video could be the final summary of a larger, concerted effort.
Study the origins of the conspiracy theories rather than focusing on What Really Happened. We can drop in bits of science as part of our explanation, but this way we distinguish our product from the others.
Avoid foaming at the mouth. Keep our cool and use humour liberally. Remember, the majority of Troothers are just misguided or paranoid, and they need our help, not our derision.
The key points to expose are the things that make the Idiot Movement so reprehensible. I'm talking about the well-documented connections to neo-Nazis, abuse of victims, and profiteering in that order.
Interviews with people who have been abused, misquoted, or vilified juxtaposed against the claims of Loose Change et. al. would be quite enlightening. I'm thinking of Val McClatchey, Silverstein if you can contact him, misquotes of FDNY personnel, etc.
The material from "Hardfire" is excellent. Also, Ron Wieck had proposed doing a panel session of debunkers at some point. I reiterate my suggestion to set up this session at a TAM or similar function. This could be additional background material.
Try to cover several dimensions rather than just hitting "Loose Change." As we cover multiple videos and organizations, we will naturally diffuse slightly into other conspiracy areas, e.g. the NWO, Bohemian Grove, etc. While we need not treat these thoroughly, once viewers understand the Sept. 11th denial is just another facet of the larger conspiracy mindset, our work is done.
I'm an engineer. This is my initial attempt at a project plan. If we want to do this, we need a strong product manager, and that should be the next order of business.

Other thoughts?

I agree with this completely.

One who has been misquoted, is Wally Miller. We already have him on tape in the BBC documentary. We have idiotic quotes from all the truthers. We have Killtown in the LC2 end credits as a researcher I think, and this guy is associated with all the lunatic theories. Etc. etc. The movement can easily be shown as what it is. We just need to collect the stuff together in a constructive way.

[~enigma~]

I agree with this completely.

One who has been misquoted, is Wally Miller. We already have him on tape in the BBC documentary. We have idiotic quotes from all the truthers. We have Killtown in the LC2 end credits as a researcher I think, and this guy is associated with all the lunatic theories. Etc. etc. The movement can easily be shown as what it is. We just need to collect the stuff together in a constructive way.
Aren't Doc's guide along with papers of Gravy, Gumboot and Apathoid more than enough if people would actually read?

[chipmunk stew]

<great ideas snipped>
Other thoughts?
I like this idea (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2513905#post2513905).

[ArmillarySphere]

Well, going after the CT movement for their antisemitic connections etc has the potential of backfiring - this is after all a textbook example of an poisoning the well attack, and even people who aren't familiar with the laundry list of logical fallacies can probably recognise a smear campaign when they see one.

Instead, go after their tactics. Show them misquoting people. Show them taking things out of context. Show them misusing elementary physics. Show them accusing firefighters and witnesses of complicity or collusion. Show their utter disdain for the victims of that day. And use their own words - no misquoting, no taking it out of context. The greatest enemy the CT movement has is their own members, when you actually take a look at what the [rule8] they're saying.

[chipmunk stew]

It could be framed around a gimmick like "Who is the REAL Truth Movement?" or something. Kind of a Jon Ronson-style quest, like his search for the Hidden Room in Them.

edit: or like Borat's search for Pamela Anderson... :D

[SRW]

The single most effective product our little circle has produced to date, in my opinion, is the "9-11 Deniers Speak" piece created by MarkyX.
Other thoughts?

I agree with this. It has some rough spots in it but has lots of potential. If you wanted to take one project to move forward with this would be the one.

[Darth Rotor]

Aren't Doc's guide along with papers of Gravy, Gumboot and Apathoid more than enough if people would actually read?
The content isn't the issue, there is a plethora of content, both here and on similarly motivated debunker sites.

The key to getting the counter message out is in packaging and dissemination, and in expanding into new media avenues.

PBS had references to Loose Change on its web site, and it got air time on All Things Considered.

Has Gravy's critique, and similarily laudble efforts, gotten that kind of exposure?

If yoiu don't package your message to a swayable audience (think swing voters in an election) then you lose the chance to reach the desired audience for your message. The audience is not people who visit Whoville: the JREF forums.

The audience is everyone who doesn't.

Dissemination "it's on a web site" narrows considerably the effectiveness of a counter message. As I noted in the OP, to win the battle, you have to reach the battlefield, or cede the field to your foe.

The counter story needs to leave Whoville.

DR

[pomeroo]

This forum has generated a treasure-trove of resources for debunking the lies of the 9/11 fantasists. Combined with sites such as 911myths.com and debunking911.com, the staggering wealth of material archived here begs to be made more accessible. There are books to be written (any extended R. Mackey dissection of a twoofer fallacy is worthy of--at least!--a chapter in a debunker book) and videos to be produced. Why have the muddle-headed fools and charlatans of the fantasy movement churned out reams of garbage while we content ourselves with the PM book and the 9/11 Commission Report? Surely there is a market for our product, which is, after all, sound science based on real evidence.

I suggested getting the leading twoofers involved in an extended series of debates. Recent experiences with Willie Rodriguez, Webster Tarpley, Kevin Ryan, and David Ray Griffin (he is certainly making himself scarce) suggest that these people understand exactly what they're peddling. We can't expect much cooperation from the enemy. But Doc has some excellent ideas, and that's his cue to weigh in.

Everyone I introduce to this forum reaches the same conclusion: there is far too much knowledge and talent here to restrict it to such a small audience.

"Full many a gem of purest ray serene
The dark unfathom'd caves of ocean bear:
Full many a flower is born to blush unseen,
And waste its sweetness on the desert air."

(Thomas Gray, Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard)

Am I wrong in believing that we have a duty to reach out to the public?

[Hourglassmemory]

I agree with this. It has some rough spots in it but has lots of potential. If you wanted to take one project to move forward with this would be the one.

I agree.
The part where he showed the corpses of flight 77 was like punching the evidence to the wacko's faces.
Although the pictures are violent, and certainly do affect the familes of the victims, this is what the wackos need to see.
They say it was not a plane because they didn't see pictures of burnt corpses strapped to airplane seats in the middle of pentagon debris.


I guess something that could be put in this type of video is doing something like the BBC did. Seeing what quotes they Ct's use, including the ones who support their views such as "I saw it and it didn't have windows." and track down that person to see what they meant. Get it on camera and confront the CTheorist with it.
Then point out the crap he says when he tries to escape what he is facing.

Another thing is calculating the number of people who would have to be involved in the conspiracy.
And do this theory by theory.
Grab Dylan Avery's film, and every quote, every person who denies their theory, everybody who is asked a question and denies, everybody who says they don't want to talk with them, everybody who is silent because they were threatned by "Men in black"...put them into the "Conspirators Bag".

Grab Eric Huffsmidt's (spell.?) book "Painful Questions" and do the same thing.
Same for Alex Jones's radio shows and Fretzer.
And do it step by step, show them the logic so they can get a look at the ******** they created.
This woudl demand a LOOOOOOOOT of free time and a LOOOOT of patience. Just to read it all would be hell.

I know the ideas would be great to put into practice but.....the problem is putting them into practice. Getting Dylan Avery or Fretzer to sit in front of a person who wants to show evidence that debunks him, when you're not BBC, will probably never happen.

[Darth Rotor]

Am I wrong in believing that we have a duty to reach out to the public?
You are absolutely right, Ron. That's what I was attempting to get across by starting this thread. :)

DR

[brodski]

Firstly it should be poinetd out that Dylan lost this battle. Virgin won't be showing LC2E.

Secondly I think we need to realize that "we" have a lot more information, and publicityreguarding "our" story than eth "truth" movment does.

Every article, news report or documentary which examines 9/11 but doesn't cover the CT angle at all supports our core message.

For the vast majority of people the default assumption is that there was no grad conspiracy outside of Al Quiada, many people have never heard of the 9/11 CTs and most that do hear of them seem to dismiss them out of hand.
there is the danger that a high profile debunking of the CT's would only serve to give the CTers more publicity than they would otherwise get.

Targeted rebuttal's of this paranoid nonsense when it comes up may be much more effective than launching an independent publicity campaign of our own.

[slugmancs]

Wish it was a better source but it was this or LGF...
I’ve spoken to Virgin Atlantic’s Press folks, a gentleman named Paul Charles. After a heated 20 minute conversation where I threatened to spread this information throughout the conservative media and promised them a media firestorm and PR poison, they have decided not to show the film.

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/05/03/virgin-atlantic-loose-change-update/

[pomeroo]

You are absolutely right, Ron. That's what I was attempting to get across by starting this thread. :)

DR



I forgot to compliment you on a brilliant post, but consider it done!

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Well, going after the CT movement for their antisemitic connections etc has the potential of backfiring - this is after all a textbook example of an poisoning the well attack, and even people who aren't familiar with the laundry list of logical fallacies can probably recognise a smear campaign when they see one.

Instead, go after their tactics. Show them misquoting people. Show them taking things out of context. Show them misusing elementary physics. Show them accusing firefighters and witnesses of complicity or collusion. Show their utter disdain for the victims of that day. And use their own words - no misquoting, no taking it out of context. The greatest enemy the CT movement has is their own members, when you actually take a look at what the [rule8] they're saying.
Although someone could argue that it is poisoning the well, if it is made clear that the link is being shown because it shows ties to people that are history revisionists, have a track record for distorting information for their own ends, and are loosely tied to organizations with criminal activity, then the highlighting of the link does have merit.

[Darth Rotor]

You made a good point Darth. But there are mainstream resources against this propaganda, there's already PM's Debunking the Myths (http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Myths-Conspiracy-Theories/dp/158816635X), and of course the different reports.
PM is "establishment."
You can't really fight people who deny reality.
Yes you can, you fight their message with facts and reality. That is how the war against propaganda is fought, and won. With fact, and, importantly, with good packaging. Bad packaging gets you Don Rumsfeld's Iraq War information campaign: a mess, and a failure.
But you're right Darth that we should make more publicly available debunkings of this idiocy for the greater public. But to fight them with their own tactics would be a waste of time, and give them much more credibility than they deserve (which is none).
You don't give credibility to people when you decimate their position.
What we should do is promote critical thinking, promote what the JREF stands for, educate people to think rationally and make them aware of the denialist's tactics.
Nope. You don't seem to understand marketing, or maybe I should say mass marketing. The audience to be reached is those who have not yet made up their minds.

The voice of everyman, the voice of "reasonable man" back up by fact is the counter to the voice of "the little guy" who "is just asking questions" and slandering good people in the process.

For RMackey: good point on the lawsuits, but that is asking someone else to fight, and it risks giving Avery and his ilk another public forum, a high publicity case, to spread their filth from.

DR

[steve s]

Last summer as the hype of the 5th anniversary of 9/11 was building, I started daydreaming about what I'd do if I had a few million bucks to play with. I'd create a 2-hour documentary debunking all the troofer's claims. Instead of just putting it on the web I'd buy up airtime on the major networks during primetime, the same way Billy Graham buys up time for his crusades. It would be on multiple times over the course of couple of weeks so that it would be almost impossible to miss.

First off, I'd hire professional producers and directors who had experience creating science docos. I'd rent some empty office space overlooking Ground Zero as the locale. I even thought about who would host it. You probably wouldn't think to hire Terry Jones of Monty Python fame, but I saw him host a doco a few years back and he was terrific. He's got a certain air of authority (must be the British accent) as well as a dry sense of humor. Although he's apparently not in the best health lately.

The show would partly consist of interviews with experts in the fields of structural engineering, demolitions, explosives, and even economics (to tackle the 'put options' and the insurance claims.) They'd dissect the claims of Woods, Jones, et al, showing clips of Woods to get across the point that she's a bit off her rocker.


The show would also feature some Mythbuster-style segments to get some key points across. For example, the claim that an aluminum airplane can't break through steel beams. They'd take an aluminum part from a plane (such as a wing rib), put it in an air cannon, and fire it at 500 mph at some steel. That's the type of thing that would really stick in peoples' minds.

Also they'd set off a few hundred pounds of thermite to show what it looks like. Then get people to imagine what hundreds of tons of thermite would look like.

The final part of the show would be the host talking with experts (Shermer? Randi?) about why people believe in such wierd things. It would address the rampant anti-semitism in the movement as well as the fragile mental state of so many of the troofers.

Finally the show would direct people to a website (here or Skeptics.org) where plenty more info would be available (such as links to Gravy's and MarkX's stuff.)


So anyway, that's what I daydream about doing if I had a few million bucks. :rolleyes:

Steve S.

[Pardalis]

PM is "establishment."

Yes, since 1902, it is internationally recognized, so is the NIST. The BBC also did a piece recently making fun of these nuts.

I don't think there is much we can do for the few paranoid ones who don't trust these solid institutions.

Nope. You don't seem to understand marketing, or maybe I should say mass marketing. The audience to be reached is those who have not yet made up their minds.

Maybe you're right. I'm just not sure I like the idea of playing their game.

[Myriad]

Reading this thread, it almost seems as if people believe the Truthers that the release of LCFC could cause a revolution -- unless rational people choose just the right strategy to counter it.

Here's how I see it: The troother iceberg is drifting into the tropics, and nothing we or they can do will change the outcome. Are we "Who's" supposed to be fretting about whether the iceberg will melt or the sea will freeze? Do we really have to decide whether it's better kicking our feet in the water to drive the iceberg away, or building a big bonfire to help melt the iceberg when it gets here?

I'll see your Branson, and raise you a Letterman:

"How about that Rosie O'Donnell thing? She has left 'The View' and is rumored to be hiding in the mountainous region of Afghanistan." --David Letterman, April 26, 2007

9/11 conspiracy is a non-contender in the mainstream, and that's not going to change. We oppose it because it's false, but that's just our own peculiar hobby. It's a non-contender in the mainstream not because it's false, but because it's profoundly unappealing to most people for the very same reasons it's so appealing to the fervent few.

Most popular bad ideas are founded on wishful thinking. Where's the wishful thinking in 9/11 conspiracy? Okay, it tells you that you don't have to worry about terrorists, terrorists are incapable of anything. But, (1) that's not credible, terrorists have been killing people for decades, and even if they couldn't really crash planes into buildings, they can still blow themselves up in shopping malls and you're just as dead that way; and (2) it also tells you that instead, you now have to worry about the U.S. Government doing you in in a fake terrorist attack, and they have a lot more money, weapons, and different ways to get at you than terrorists do.

So among the vast population that's left over once you omit those few who decide their positions based on the actual facts, who's going to kiss this frog? The mainstream media, because they love confessing to incompetence and malfeasance despite no evidence of same? The American public, because they like being called sheeple, thinking they were duped by the least competent administration in history, and most of all, admitting they were wrong? The soccer moms and AARP, because darn it if they can't have cheaper gasoline and guaranteed health care, surely total anarchy is the next best thing? The Democrats, because they like nothing better than to give the Republicans a lack-of-patriotism club to beat them with? (Actually, that last one is by far the most plausible.)

The Truth Movement needs a counter-publicity campaign about as much as the Hitting Yourself In The Head With A Brick Until You Pass Out Movement needs a counter-publicity campaign.

As I said in my sig a few months ago, the Truth Movement is an entertainment business with no way to create new material. That makes them irrelevant. Offensive they might be, but it's giving them way too much credit to consider them significant, let alone dangerous.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[~enigma~]

Reading this thread, it almost seems as if people believe the Truthers that the release of LCFC could cause a revolution -- unless rational people choose just the right strategy to counter it.

Here's how I see it: The troother iceberg is drifting into the tropics, and nothing we or they can do will change the outcome. Are we "Who's" supposed to be fretting about whether the iceberg will melt or the sea will freeze? Do we really have to decide whether it's better kicking our feet in the water to drive the iceberg away, or building a big bonfire to help melt the iceberg when it gets here?

I'll see your Branson, and raise you a Letterman:

"How about that Rosie O'Donnell thing? She has left 'The View' and is rumored to be hiding in the mountainous region of Afghanistan." --David Letterman, April 26, 2007

9/11 conspiracy is a non-contender in the mainstream, and that's not going to change. We oppose it because it's false, but that's just our own peculiar hobby. It's a non-contender in the mainstream not because it's false, but because it's profoundly unappealing to most people for the very same reasons it's so appealing to the fervent few.

Most popular bad ideas are founded on wishful thinking. Where's the wishful thinking in 9/11 conspiracy? Okay, it tells you that you don't have to worry about terrorists, terrorists are incapable of anything. But, (1) that's not credible, terrorists have been killing people for decades, and even if they couldn't really crash planes into buildings, they can still blow themselves up in shopping malls and you're just as dead that way; and (2) it also tells you that instead, you now have to worry about the U.S. Government doing you in in a fake terrorist attack, and they have a lot more money, weapons, and different ways to get at you than terrorists do.

So among the vast population that's left over once you omit those few who decide their positions based on the actual facts, who's going to kiss this frog? The mainstream media, because they love confessing to incompetence and malfeasance despite no evidence of same? The American public, because they like being called sheeple, thinking they were duped by the least competent administration in history, and most of all, admitting they were wrong? The soccer moms and AARP, because darn it if they can't have cheaper gasoline and guaranteed health care, surely total anarchy is the next best thing? The Democrats, because they like nothing better than to give the Republicans a lack-of-patriotism club to beat them with? (Actually, that last one is by far the most plausible.)

The Truth Movement needs a counter-publicity campaign about as much as the Hitting Yourself In The Head With A Brick Until You Pass Out Movement needs a counter-publicity campaign.

As I said in my sig a few months ago, the Truth Movement is an entertainment business with no way to create new material. That makes them irrelevant. Offensive they might be, but it's giving them way too much credit to consider them significant, let alone dangerous.

Respectfully,
MyriadRead Myriad's post again everybody...

I agree Myriad and isn't it odd how the attention and urgeny is only serving to "validate" the truthers?

[HyJinX]

Nomination to Myriad.

[realitybites]

I'm a little late in this thread, but a few thoughts....

In regards to the OP and doing something more mainstream... hasn't it already been done? There are books out there that accurately account for that day. There have been documentaries doing the same thing. Maybe I'm just missing what this project would do differently...?

Gumboot mentioned our fight being a reactionary one, where we are stuck in the position of having to wait for the truthers to make the first move so that we can volley off a rebuttal, and suggested turning the tables and taking a more proactive approach. Personally, I think that's like walking around your neighborhood, knocking on doors, and telling your neighbors that 2+2 really does equal 4.

Again, maybe it's a failure of imagination on my part, but trying to flood the mainstream outlets with information that is already out there (if you look for it) I think gives a lot more credibility to the truthers and even runs the risk of insulting people who know better.

I guess I'm just curious as to the sudden sense of urgency.

There is a ceiling as to how much this movement can grow, as there are only a finite amount of mentally challenged people in this world that will buy it. Books and documentaries won't change that. And while I do respect those of us here who have and continue to challenge the woo, a part of me wonders what would happen if we just left them alone.

My guess is that the fire would grow, probably to a larger number than we've seen previously. But then it would die out. The in-fighting. The need to be the next big thing. The fickleness of youth. It would eventually dwindle back down to a footnote.

ETA: Yeah... what Myriad said.

[The Doc]

Boloboffin's videos are awesome.

If he could compile an hour long composition of them in a well presented fashion, I would think that there is a good possibility someone would air them.

[~enigma~]

Nomination to Myriad.
I second the motion....

[T.A.M.]

I agree that a prophylactic approach to the truth virus is a very positive step. My concern, if a film or document was produced, which spelled out the offiicial story, even with tonnes of valid references is this...

To Joe public, who already knows what happened on 9/11, our product will be a rehash of what he already knows to be true...I am not sure it will have much impact to the average viewer, as they already believe...preaching to the choir.

This is the advantage LC has...it presence a complete "upside down" approach and view point to the whole 9/11 thing. This, along with a hatred of the current US Admin, is what has made it so popular.

That being said, if we decide to do such a project...count me in.

TAM:)

[hellaeon]

By showing this film, Virgin lend it their own credibility, which is huge and international. There is a purchased bond of trust between Virgin and its customers, in which the customers make the assumption that they will not be lied to by their service provider. If Virgin show this film on their flights, they are endorsing it.

I agree on some of what you said but disagree with Tkd. Its simply not that cut and dry. Again I use the point - If a music store stocks a distributions cd's and one of those is a white supremacist band, how would they know unless someone brought it to their attention? TKD is saying 'if the music store stocks it, they endorse it'

Thats ************ and you know it. There is wiggle room for things to slip through thanks to marketing departments, ratings, customer wants and needs etc.

Most people I know have no idea about 9/11 conspiracies and when I present it to them, most ask me why I bother fighting it, if they saw loose change now they may think halfway through 'Ahh this is the movie matt spoke about! Crap! turn it off!'

With that in mind, did Richard bransom sign a contract with dylan? of course not. A marketing division or distribution deal for the inflight entertainment is responsible. So what about the blurb on the website? thats the same blurb used everywhere the movie is shown, its just a template. Once they got wind of the offensive nature it was canned. I bet Mr bransom and the whole 'Endorsing Virgin Staff' have no idea they were going to even show the movie, that they are not now, and whatever it is about.

The only reason people are reacting like they are here is because we know the depth of the lies and misquotes in the loose change movie.

Gumboot, Myriad - excellent posts as always.

My thoughts.

Edit: reading myriads post again I think nails the issue. Everyone here is overreacting.

[realitybites]

Everyone here is overreacting.

I agreed with that statement 100% about 2 hours ago.

With stuff like this though (http://newsbusters.org/node/12499), I guess it's hard to completely write off the effect the truth movement can have.

[8den]

I agreed with that statement 100% about 2 hours ago.

With stuff like this though (http://newsbusters.org/node/12499), I guess it's hard to completely write off the effect the truth movement can have.

There's an old Maggie Thatcher quote about the IRA, about why she censored, Sinn Fein during the 80s, she wanted to deprive them of the oxygen of publicity. Frankly I'm inclided to suggest several of the more loathsome truthers should be deprived of oxygen period.

Whenever a mainstream magazine or news organisation look at the truth movement, be it Bill O'Reilly, the BBC, or George Monibot (to pick several people/organisations on a wide range of the political spectrum. Troofers seize upon them "Aha you are working of X agenda (because George Monibot or O'Reilly have the same agenda) or, and this is more significant, you "forgot" or did not mention X,Y or Z fact of the conspiracy. X,Y or Z is invariable something that could be debunked, but the scattergun approach of the troofers, means, no one article, no one documentary, could realisitcally deal with this much stupid.

And here in lies the point, no one film, no one documentary, no single article, will be the stake through the heart of the conspiracy theories. And in this blog fueled atmosphere, the only strength the conspiracy theorists have, is not strength in facts, evidence, logic or rationality, but strength in numbers.

Look at the comments section in the BBC, or the south park forum, or on the guardian website, they are literally inundated outdated ill informed nonsense troofer garbage, posted by a handfully semi intelligent semi lucid fanatics. With the odd voice of rationality, sanity, and reason, trying to fight a alvalanche of stupid using a baseball bat made of facts.

Every time, you stand up to point out the idiocy of the troofers be it satire like south park, journalism like the BBC, or using logic and science like PM, you give these idiots the oxygen of publicity, they know you cannot counter every non sequitur, every absurd claim, be it banking, be it strutural engineering,* because they need to only spout some pseudo science or some unsubstantiated claim, as a skeptic, you need to know what you are on about. Every time you publish or make a film you give them an opportunity to piggyback their absurd arguments off the back of your rational ones. And unless you're willing to challenge an army of stupid with every comment on your articles blog, or film's website, they will, not win, but dilute your message.

This isn't a court case, they're the "prosecution" they need to prove their case. The best offense in this situation is a good defense. Find them, find their films and blogs, and challenge them, bring the argument to them, but them on the defensive, watch them defend their claims, and watch how the defense crumbles, when exposed to cold hard logic and reasoning.

Don't give them a voice, Find their voice, and challenge it.

And then get banned. :rolleyes:

* Gravy is the exception natch.

[MarkyX]

I agree with this. It has some rough spots in it but has lots of potential. If you wanted to take one project to move forward with this would be the one.

I agree and it's nothing to do with my bias :) It contained very little "debunking information" and mostly just gave a spotlight to these idiots and simply let them talk. Even though Screw Loose Change is pretty damn well-known, it was 9/11 Deniers Speak that has managed to get a lot more attention from numerous blogs both Left and Right wing.

It is rather unfortunate that I didn't continue on doing "9/11 Deniers Speak - Ground Zero edition" when it highlights the 9/11 Deniers on the 5th Anniversary of 9/11, even though I *might* still have clips of it somewhere backed up.

[MarkyX]

Well crap, I still have a few clips together. It wouldn't be longer then 30 minutes though, but I can definitely do something about this.

[Darth Rotor]

Well crap, I still have a few clips together. It wouldn't be longer then 30 minutes though, but I can definitely do something about this.
Good. The call to action is aimed at just that, action.

Myriad is eloquent, but she underestimates, IMO, the enemy.

It isn't just Dylan, it is the composite of the troofers, the synergy they attempt to achieve, that is to be countered and beaten to a pulp, and their land salted.

Given that you are quite the master of your own counter video, which talented folk of Gravy's Grunts do you think would add value to your production?

I am not kidding around. There's so much material and talent to build from, what is needed is direction and focus, and talent. For example, when it comes to creating videos, I suxors the duxors.

But this is not an "Army of One" this is a "Team of We."

DR

[Darth Rotor]

There's an old Maggie Thatcher quote about the IRA, about why she censored, Sinn Fein during the 80s, she wanted to deprive them of the oxygen of publicity. Frankly I'm inclided to suggest several of the more loathsome truthers should be deprived of oxygen period.


Yep. However, voicing such sentiments on this site is bannable, or at least moddable.

So, in the other than dire motif, consider other courses of action.

DR

[LashL]

Wish it was a better source but it was this or LGF...


http://hotair.com/archives/2007/05/03/virgin-atlantic-loose-change-update/

Well, that was a short-lived "victory" for da troof. :D

(Over at LC, Do-Over said that it has been pulled from the Virgin lineup - along with the other 9/11 conspiracy videos that were on the list yesterday - but, apparently, he's okay with that because he and his boyz were joking about it yesterday or the day before, wondering how long it would take to be yanked, and they'll get some money out of it anyway so all is right with their world)

[geni]

In terms of packageing debunkings give the Cters the first mover advantage. They are not particularly useful. With the posible exception of scientology debunking is less effective in changeing people's minds than whatever it is being debunked.

Thus we look to other packages. The most logical attack line are ridicul (welcome to the crazy world of 9/11 troothers) and humor.

Online this means repackageing video of their more extream protests into short clips for the youtube audence.

Offline we have less control over but there must be comedians looking for material.

[8den]

Yep. However, voicing such sentiments on this site is bannable, or at least moddable.

So, in the other than dire motif, consider other courses of action.

DR

Dart I think we both know I was being ironic when I made that comment, but if you aren't aware it is a common re interpretation of a famous quote by Thatcher. Its the Northern Ireland equivlent of, "we begin bombing in five minutes" (sic)[/quote]

The irony was added later

[realitybites]

Myriad is eloquent, but she underestimates, IMO, the enemy.

A couple questions for you Darth, in all sincerity. What is your estimate of the truth movement? What do you feel they are capable of? What's your worst case scenario with them (i.e. an actual revolution/anarchy/etc.)?

[MarkyX]

Given that you are quite the master of your own counter video, which talented folk of Gravy's Grunts do you think would add value to your production?


The original intention was to use Loose Change's own vanity fair videos against them, including some other videos such as Jack Blood and Alex Jones (including the Mark Roberts vs Alex Jones' "debate"). It's mostly going to focus on the dumb leaders of the movement and strictly video with the usual "subtitle interrupts" quoting their stupidity.

Plus I've managed to get a video of an Israeli American talking about 9/11 conspriacy theories. Perfect for talking about Willis Carto (even a headline picture of the wonderful Adolf Hitler article at the Barnes review) and Chris Bollyn.

To see the original intro, which I still plan to use and same style, could be viewed here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRnNHzYQp7w

[SRW]

There are reasons for going after the trooofer, first off its fun, and you gotta have fun in your life. because you just do. A cats gotta have his cheese.

Secondly, they are like the kKK, bring them out in the open and shine a bright light on them and they just look silly. The more people know about them the less appealing they are and the bigger and wider a joke they become. Letterman and Leno vising for the best Judy Wood Material...Jon Steward doing MessOlosechange...

I don't see the down side to a full on "9/11 Deniers Speak" especially if you could get a big time narrator with lots of humor tossed in.

[steve s]

I agree with Darth Rotor. I think what separates the 9/11 conspiracy from so many others is that there's so much science involved that is simply beyond the comprehension of most people. Most people know little or nothing about engineering which is why so many people will believe so many of the truther's claims.

An example would be the claim that if the lower portions of the Twin Towers could support the weight of the upper portions before the collapse, then they should have been able to resist the collapse. It's the type of thing that many people will buy into simply because they're ignorant of the difference between static and dynamic loads. Getting information to as many people as possible can only be a good thing.

Reading this thread, it almost seems as if people believe the Truthers that the release of LCFC could cause a revolution -- unless rational people choose just the right strategy to counter it.

No, not a revolution, just a long-festering belief in the irrational that refuses to die because too many people don't have the knowledge to resist it. Look at how long the JFK conspiracy has lasted. I still hear people claiming that the fact that Kennedy's head snapped backward is proof that he was shot from the front, when in fact it is proof of just the opposite. It's a lack of scientific understanding that allows such paranoia to persist.

Basically it's the difference between pouring a bucket of water onto a fire versus letting the fire gradually burn itself out. I say pour the water.

Steve S.

[~enigma~]

I agree with Darth Rotor. I think what separates the 9/11 conspiracy from so many others is that there's so much science involved that is simply beyond the comprehension of most people. Most people know little or nothing about engineering which is why so many people will believe so many of the truther's claims.

An example would be the claim that if the lower portions of the Twin Towers could support the weight of the upper portions before the collapse, then they should have been able to resist the collapse. It's the type of thing that many people will buy into simply because they're ignorant of the difference between static and dynamic loads. Getting information to as many people as possible can only be a good thing.



No, not a revolution, just a long-festering belief in the irrational that refuses to die because too many people don't have the knowledge to resist it. Look at how long the JFK conspiracy has lasted. I still hear people claiming that the fact that Kennedy's head snapped backward is proof that he was shot from the front, when in fact it is proof of just the opposite. It's a lack of scientific understanding that allows such paranoia to persist.

Basically it's the difference between pouring a bucket of water onto a fire versus letting the fire gradually burn itself out. I say pour the water.

Steve S.
Some people still refuse to walk under a ladder, believe black cats are bad luck, think Nessie is real, believe in god, believe in UFOs and alien abduction with anal probes. Regardless of the amount of evidence or science that says otherwise, these beliefs persist. What is the big difference that roils peoples blood here about the truthers?

[MarkyX]

What is the big difference that roils peoples blood here about the truthers?


Being scared of walking under a ladder doesn't piss on the grave of 3000 people, accuse innocent people of mass murder, and disrespect the heroes of that day.

[Foolmewunz]

I'd like to weigh in on this, because Darth's right, mostly what we do is just that... weigh in on the topic, tossing our comments or debunking up against the latest wall of b.s. coming out of the Alternate Conspiracy movement.

The inherent problem in getting a mainstream voice out there to debunk the debunkers (that's how they see themselves - they are debunking the government lies) is that their crap is not organized or well-produced and does not have a single viewpoint. Where do we focus our camera? JDX, the scholars, LTW/LC, Killtown, Dr. Judy or Dr. Jones, Alex Jones, the book hawkers like Fetzer and Griffin???

Their side can attack the official studies and reports, and of course the evil NWO and government. They have a focal point, but they come from all directions like the bugs in Starship Troopers, only less intelligent and less organized. But they just keep coming....

How much attention would you get in the mainstream for something that is addressed at supporting most of the official conclusions on 9/11? The people who are going to read it or look at it are the people who are currently visiting this forum, clicking on SLC, Scholars, LC, etc...

Think up a new bats**t crazy conspiracy. Let's say, Paul Krassner's crass joke about Johnson performing unnatural acts on the corpse of Kennedy. (Which actually did have UL credence in the late sixties.) If the whole CT world started marching at the Johnson Library and spreading this kind of crap, how would you deal with it? First, you ignore them, then you correct them, then you ignore them because they go away. If the movement gains any momentum, what kind of document or documentary can you produce to counter absolute lunacy? It's not an easy task, and even if you produce it, are you going to get an audience other than the current opponents.

I like the Chipmunk's idea. A documentary about the movement, focusing on the beginnings, honing in on the amateur sleuths like Dylan and the kidz, and segueing to the more misanthropic elements on the fringes. Something a la "Marjoe"...

Derail:

>Realitybites - the article you post is more indicative of people trying to get on a jury than abject ignorance or conspiracy mindset IMHO. Any trial attorneys here can tell you that jury interviews will get this kind of reaction to many questions. There's the group who want off of jury duty so will say things (being interviewed for a criminal jury) like "I don't trust cops!" They know they'll be excused. Others will try their damnedest to sound like Solomon.
DA: Do you think blowing up buildings should be against the law?
Prospective Juror: I don't know.
DA: This case concerns vehicular homicide. Do you drive?
PJ: I'm not sure.

Listening to jury interviews, I'm always reminded of the poll on beer.....
Do you drink beer?
67% YES
28% NO
5% NOT CERTAIN

.... The jurors who are just dying to get on the panel all sound like the 5% who aren't sure if they drink beer or not.


ETA: Just hit 1800 posts! Look out Larsen! At this rate, I'll catch you on my 136th birthday.

[Darth Rotor]

A couple questions for you Darth, in all sincerity. What is your estimate of the truth movement? What do you feel they are capable of? What's your worst case scenario with them (i.e. an actual revolution/anarchy/etc.)?
To act as catalysts, not as fighters. They are too cowardly to fight, but then, so too are many so called leaders of political change. Marat died in his bath, but his words helped spark a revolution.

Dylan does not bother me half as much as Corey Rowe. He served in Afghanistan and Iraq, both, and he is not just disenchanted, but bitter and wants, or at least wanted to, lash out and get some payback for having been sorely used. His path to that end was to join in with Dylan.

So, if one will, will one percent? If one percent of about 400,000 people who went over there would, which is 4000, how do you handle 4,000 Tim McVeighs?

That is what keeps me awake at night. I came back from the experience both proud of the folk I served with and who I tried to support with my work (with mixed results) and sickened by how good men and women had been, and are still being, used.

I am roughly rational, if somewhat more cynical than I was going into the game. Not everyone has my perspective, for all that some of the know nothings on this forum, and elsewhere, cannot grasp the balance between competing positions my view holds. If Libertarians weren't such a collection of moonbats, I'd register as one.

DR

[~enigma~]

Being scared of walking under a ladder doesn't piss on the grave of 3000 people, accuse innocent people of mass murder, and disrespect the heroes of that day.
Ok let me add crap like Lourdes, Benny Hinn, etc... You going to tell me that less than 3000 people have died because they listened or followed these woos?

ETA - let's just compare the deaths on 9/11 to the number of people who died after being healed by Benny Hinn or that ignored medical advice because of Benny Hinn. That number is obviously far greater, is our righteous anger proportionally as great for Benny Hinn?

[gumboot]

9/11 conspiracy is a non-contender in the mainstream, and that's not going to change. We oppose it because it's false, but that's just our own peculiar hobby. It's a non-contender in the mainstream not because it's false, but because it's profoundly unappealing to most people for the very same reasons it's so appealing to the fervent few.


Excellent post, and I see your point. But a question... sorry if I should already know the answer... are you an American?

I ask this because for me particularly this issue extends beyond the USA. Specifically it relates to New Zealand. It may be that LC would be outright rejected by the majority of the American population (I actually think that's debatable... more later...), but my concern is there's 5,700,000,000 people in the world you aren't Americans. This sort of thing is far more likely to be accepted outside of the States, and outsides the States it can do severe harm to the USA's image.

I'll take a very specific example.

During the 1980's, when New Zealand and the USA's relationship started to cool over US Nuclear Ship visits, the population was fairly 50/50 split of whether to allow visits or not. We weren't willing to totally reject our foreign ally.

However, when the Rainbow Warrior was bombed by the French, many foreign nations - including the USA - failed to condemn the attack. New Zealanders saw this as the USA backing nuclear power over international law and common morality. The opinion turned sharply against the USA at this point, and led to bans on US ships coming into law.

I point this out to demonstrate just how easily public opinion can turn against a foreign power. For another example, look at how the USA reacted to French dissent over the Invasion of Iraq.

9/11 is not just an American event, it's a global event. Aside from the many nations who lost citizens in the attacks, they led into two wars and new global policies that have affected virtually every nation on the planet.

Americans may reject the notion out of hand. Many non-Americans will not. And I'm not talking rabidly anti-Americans living in the Middle East, I'm talking educated, sensible citizens of the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, France, Sweden, Germany, Italy, India... well, you get the idea.




Now, to the second part of my post. You talked of revolution, and the Truth Movement being "dangerous". I suppose this is understandable, given DR's talk of "war" and LCF talk of revolution.

I want to make something clear here, from my own point of view.

I do not in any way believe the "Truth Movement" poses any threat whatsoever to the stability of any country on the entire planet.

There will be no revolution. There will be no riots. There will be no assassination attempts (not over this, anyway).

I don't read DR's post as meaning literal armed conflict. I see it as a "war of ideas" or a "war of knowledge".

I believe the Truth Movement poses a very real threat to collective human enlightenment.

People are strange. They will watch something like LC, consider it has some good points, believe 9/11 was probably an inside job, and then return to their daily lives just as before, changing nothing.

People do this all the time.

Why does the JREF exist? Because despite over four hundred years since we entered the Age of Reason, "woo", as we call it, is still rampant in the world. Not just in Chinese villages, but in the hearts of the world's most modern cities.

Even us skeptics have some woo left in us. Most of our friends and family have it in buckets full.

9/11 CTs are not dangerous because they threaten a revolution in the USA. They are dangerous because they darken collective human knowledge. Look at the moon haox and JFK CTs. Do people riot over them? No. But a significant minority of Americans (and more overseas) think these CTs might just have something to them. This is damaging to human collective knowledge, because as we know these CTs do not have something to them.

Likewise, people exposed to 9/11 CTs, without having first been exposed to an accurate portrayal of events, will think there's something to them. They won't act. They won't become a die-hard truther posting links on youtube videos. But they will file into their collective knowledge the notion that 9/11 could be an inside job. It will be filed away next to their knowledge that "maybe we didn't go to the moon after all", and well, "the CIA probably do assassinate US presidents", you know, beside "Pearl Harbor was pretty convenient really".

These people will grow up, have children, and pass on all their collective knowledge onto their parents. No, I'm not talking a little sit down where they tell their children the American government blew up the WTC. I'm talking a general attitude that this sort of thing does happen.

And these sorts of things are FAR MORE PREVELANT THAN YOU MIGHT WANT TO ACCEPT. Most likely, faced with specific claims, these people will see reason.

But try asking more circumspect questions... "Was anything about the official 9/11 story a bit suspicious?" "Do you think it's possible?"

You'll get an entirely different answer.

The 9/11 Truth Movement poses a very real and very immediate threat to the advancement of our species' collective understanding of our world. They're holding us back. That's why we have to fight it. Not because they're going to storm the White House.

-Gumboot


There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.
-Socrates (469 - 399 BC)

[Darth Rotor]

I don't read DR's post as meaning literal armed conflict. I see it as a "war of ideas" or a "war of knowledge".

I believe the Truth Movement poses a very real threat to collective human enlightenment.

People are strange. They will watch something like LC, consider it has some good points, believe 9/11 was probably an inside job, and then return to their daily lives just as before, changing nothing.

People do this all the time.

Why does the JREF exist? Because despite over four hundred years since we entered the Age of Reason, "woo", as we call it, is still rampant in the world. Not just in Chinese villages, but in the hearts of the world's most modern cities.

Even us skeptics have some woo left in us. Most of our friends and family have it in buckets full.

9/11 CTs are not dangerous because they threaten a revolution in the USA. They are dangerous because they darken collective human knowledge. Look at the moon haox and JFK CTs. Do people riot over them? No. But a significant minority of Americans (and more overseas) think these CTs might just have something to them. This is damaging to human collective knowledge, because as we know these CTs do not have something to them.

Likewise, people exposed to 9/11 CTs, without having first been exposed to an accurate portrayal of events, will think there's something to them. They won't act.

But they will file into their collective knowledge the notion that 9/11 could be an inside job. It will be filed away next to their knowledge that "maybe we didn't go to the moon after all", and well, "the CIA probably do assassinate US presidents", you know, beside "Pearl Harbor was pretty convenient really".

These people will grow up, have children, and pass on all their collective knowledge onto their parents. No, I'm not talking a little sit down where they tell their children the American government blew up the WTC. I'm talking a general attitude that this sort of thing does happen.

And these sorts of things are FAR MORE PREVELANT THAN YOU MIGHT WANT TO ACCEPT. Most likely, faced with specific claims, these people will see reason.

But try asking more circumspect questions... "Was anything about the official 9/11 story a bit suspicious?" "Do you think it's possible?"

You'll get an entirely different answer.

The 9/11 Truth Movement poses a very real and very immediate threat to the advancement of our species' collective understanding of our world. They're holding us back. That's why we have to fight it. Not because they're going to storm the White House.



You got it, you get it, and the war of ideas is very much a conflict, even if no iron raindrops fall and no bayonets are thrust into warm flesh.

DR

[MarkyX]

A little off-topic, but does anyone have the AVI or WMV version of Mike Walter's telling 9/11 Deniers to stop using him.

[Furcifer]

I agree with you as well Gumboot. As a Canadian, i can see the harm this could do. To present this "film" under the guise of a documentary is negligent to the point of being criminal. For Most non-Americans this will be the only source of information regarding 9/11 since that day. It will be assumed by Most to be factual and without error. Most will never know it was created by a couple college kids looking for an easy A+. The material it presents in its current format is propaganda. And propaganda against any person,people, organization or government is wrong.

[sesshin]

I just wanted to say I think an expose about the Truth movement is a great idea and long long overdue.

they are like the kKK, bring them out in the open and shine a bright light on them and they just look silly


I agree. If you look at documentaries like "Jesus Camp" or "Trekkies" they did just that and brought out into the open how crazy/weird/strange these lesser-known groups of people really are. Now they are the punchlines of jokes. Thats what the Truth movement needs to become, a punchline.

[Dr Adequate]

Well, there are already lots of books and documentaries which tell the truth about 9/11, but not in such a way as to debunk the Troof.

And for a general audience, it can't be done.

---

Voiceover: And then the South Tower collapsed.

[Footage of South Tower collapsing.]

Voiceover: And if we look again you'll notice that there are no explosions on the soundtrack.

[Footage of South Tower collapsing again.]

Voiceover: And here's some footage of buildings undergoing controlled demolition so's you can see how completely different it is.

[Footage of half-a-dozen buildings being demolished.]

Voiceover: And here's a view of the debris from the air. Notice how the South Tower did not "implode symmetrically into its own footprint", whatever that means.

[View of debris of South Tower from the air.]

Voiceover: And we can see in closeup that it did not "turn into dust".

[Closeup of debris.]

Voiceover: And even though you've just seen the freakin' video of the South Tower collapsing, and even though it would be obvious to most vertebrates and some of the brighter frickin' gastropods exactly why it collapsed, here's a guy from NIST to explain it.

[Cut to balding guy with spectacles and a chalkboard.]

---

Evolution versus creationism has already been offered as an parallel example. I agree. David Attenborough can make great documentaries about evolution, but he couldn't if he had to stop every five seconds to debunk the garbage that creationists talk about the same subject.

That's my job.