Merged: Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[Cuddles]

The original thread was getting rather long and has therefore been closed. Please feel free to continue the discussion here.

Posted By:Cuddles

[Whiplash]

How long till the claims that the old thread was closed to hide the "complete beatdown" by Bill that was going on?

[bill smith]

Originally Posted by Whiplash

How long till the claims that the old thread was closed to hide the "complete beatdown" by Bill that was going on?

Well you will have the opportunity to beat me down here too. Game on.

[Toke]

Originally Posted by Whiplash

How long till the claims that the old thread was closed to hide the "complete beatdown" by Bill that was going on?

This is not MDC material

[bill smith]

I believe this gem from Mike Rivero absolutely. Who wants to deny this Truth.

"Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."

[Jackanory]

Originally Posted by bill smith

I believe this gem from Mike Rivero absolutely. Who wants to deny this Truth.

"Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."

Any sane person will deny this as Truth for USA/UK/Canada/ Europe Bill. Paranoia explains it better.

In Iraq, maybe. In Korea, maybe. In Zimbabawa, maybe.

What planet are you on Bill?

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by bill smith

I believe this gem from Mike Rivero absolutely. Who wants to deny this Truth.

"Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."

Bill smith's presentation of this quote in a forum dedicated to the discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories is a textbook example of one of the standard 9/11 truther strawman arguments. It rests on the assumption that there is no difference between rejecting the specific allegation that the 9/11 attacks were planned and executed by elements within the US Government, and rejecting the general assertion that some governments at some times are corrupt. The aim is to portray as naive and self-deluded those who question the truther account of events with the same level of skepticism that they question the vastly more widely understood account of events, and find that the former is contradicted by, where the latter is supported by, any and all the available evidence.

Dave

[bill smith]

Originally Posted by Whiplash

How long till the claims that the old thread was closed to hide the "complete beatdown" by Bill that was going on?

Maybe certain sensitive subjects should be avoided. There are more roads to Rome anyway.

[bill smith]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Bill smith's presentation of this quote in a forum dedicated to the discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories is a textbook example of one of the standard 9/11 truther strawman arguments. It rests on the assumption that there is no difference between rejecting the specific allegation that the 9/11 attacks were planned and executed by elements within the US Government, and rejecting the general assertion that some governments at some times are corrupt. The aim is to portray as naive and self-deluded those who question the truther account of events with the same level of skepticism that they question the vastly more widely understood account of events, and find that the former is contradicted by, where the latter is supported by, any and all the available evidence.

Dave

Interesting piece of pop-psychology there Dave. However it leaves the impregnable tightly-written axiom from Mike Rivero unscathed.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by bill smith

Interesting piece of pop-psychology there Dave. However it leaves the impregnable tightly-written axiom from Mike Rivero unscathed.

And here is the next level of deceit. Bill smith has attempted to defend a quote by role reversal. In fact, the "impregnable tightly-written axiom" to which he refers is itself a piece of pop psychology, in that it describes the beliefs of "most people" without reasoning or evidence to support its position, whereas the "piece of pop psychology" is in fact an analysis of the fallacious nature of the argument and is therefore an exercise in logic rather than psychology. One wonders who is likely to be fooled by this rather obvious misrepresentation.

Dave

[bill smith]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

And here is the next level of deceit. Bill smith has attempted to defend a quote by role reversal. In fact, the "impregnable tightly-written axiom" to which he refers is itself a piece of pop psychology, in that it describes the beliefs of "most people" without reasoning or evidence to support its position, whereas the "piece of pop psychology" is in fact an analysis of the fallacious nature of the argument and is therefore an exercise in logic rather than psychology. One wonders who is likely to be fooled by this rather obvious misrepresentation.

Dave

You should consider doing this for a living Dave.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by bill smith

You should consider doing this for a living Dave.

And finally, a meaningless interjection disguised as a witty remark, because he's run out of things to say.

Dave

[bill smith]

This exerpt from another well known person slots in with Mike Rivero's axiom to some extent.

''It would never come into their [the people's] heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation.''

[Jackanory]

Originally Posted by bill smith

This exerpt from another well known person slots in with Mike Rivero's axiom to some extent.

''It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation.''

Do you proof read what you post Bill? Thought not.

You have a knack of being able to post the most refuting and self destructing evidence Bill -well done. The TM will be slithering away from you as we speak. Classic stuff.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by bill smith

Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds,

Still waiting for that bit.

Dave

[bill smith]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Still waiting for that bit.

Dave

Do you stlll say that we have not gathered enough to justify a new enquiry ?

[Jackanory]

Originally Posted by bill smith

Do you stlll say that we have not gathered enough to justify a new enquiry ?

Yes. Quantity isnt enough Bill. Quality and credible is the key. Seems Heiwa is the fraud we all new him to be too.

[SteveAustin]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

And here is the next level of deceit. Bill smith has attempted to defend a quote by role reversal. In fact, the "impregnable tightly-written axiom" to which he refers is itself a piece of pop psychology, in that it describes the beliefs of "most people" without reasoning or evidence to support its position,

I guess a couple hundred years of psychology is not good enough "evidence" for you is it Dave?

That piece of "pop" psychology is quite clearly fact. It is psychology 101. It doesn't matter how you try and portray it. This is how the human mind works, and if you were to take some psychology courses you would learn that this quote from Mike Rivero is logical and truthful and accurate.

It also explains perfectly the attitudes and reactions of most on these very forums, but that is what you are trying to hide.

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

whereas the "piece of pop psychology" is in fact an analysis of the fallacious nature of the argument and is therefore an exercise in logic rather than psychology. One wonders who is likely to be fooled by this rather obvious misrepresentation.

Dave

Do you think using the term "fallacious" makes your argument seem any more valid? It does not, all it does is show you have no understanding of psychology.

How people react and believe "is an exercise in logic rather than psychology"? Really Dave? Maybe you should do a little research and find out what psychology is all about!

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by SteveAustin

That piece of "pop" psychology is quite clearly fact. It is psychology 101. It doesn't matter how you try and portray it. This is how the human mind works, and if you were to take some psychology courses you would learn that this quote from Mike Rivero is logical and truthful and accurate.

Even if it were, it's irrelevant to the specific question of whether the US Government was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, and hence posting it on this forum is an attempt at misdirection.

Dave

[SteveAustin]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Even if it were

Is that your way of saying "I was wrong about Bill's comments and the quotes he used"

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

it's irrelevant to the specific question of whether the US Government was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, and hence posting it on this forum is an attempt at misdirection.

Dave

That's disingeneous of you Dave, of course it is irrelevant TO THE SPECIFIC QUESTION of whether the US government was responsible, but this is the "general discussion thread" and the psychology behind 9/11 and the psychology of the JREF debunkers is not irrelevant.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by SteveAustin

Is that your way of saying "I was wrong about Bill's comments and the quotes he used"

No. The quote was a sweeping generalisation about psychology uttered by a conspiracist website owner and radio show host. It'd be hard to imagine a better description than "pop psychology".

Originally Posted by SteveAustin

That's disingeneous of you Dave, of course it is irrelevant TO THE SPECIFIC QUESTION of whether the US government was responsible, but this is the "general discussion thread" and the psychology behind 9/11 and the psychology of the JREF debunkers is not irrelevant.

Assuming that you meant "disingenuous", the use of the quote itself was disingenuous. The false syllogism, "Some governments are corrupt, therefore anyone disbelieving the 9/11 truth movement has been deceived by a corrupt government" is a commonly used piece of misdirection on this forum.

Dave

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by bill smith

I believe this gem from Mike Rivero absolutely. Who wants to deny this Truth.

"Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."

Relevance to 9/11 Conspiracy Theories please? This may be the general discussion thread, but we still try to keep it on topic.

TAM

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by SteveAustin

of course it is irrelevant TO THE SPECIFIC QUESTION of whether the US government was responsible, but this is the "general discussion thread" and the psychology behind 9/11 and the psychology of the JREF debunkers is not irrelevant.

And if bill had presented it that way, as a commentary related to 9/11 CTist or Debunker thinking, had given some opinions of his own on the matter, then it would not be an issue.

To post a quote from someone about the average persons aprroach to their govt, in and of itself, is not relevant, without context, to the 9/11 CT subforum...sorry.

TAM

[tuc0]

Originally Posted by bill smith

Do you stlll say that we have not gathered enough to justify a new enquiry ?

So far you haven't gathered anything that would justify a new enquiry. Poop-psychology like the irrelevant quote from Mike Rivero (who?) is a perfect example of the quality of your "evidence".

[SteveAustin]

WOW Dave, you have backtracked all the way to “it’s pop psychology”.

Let’s deconstruct your “argument” Dave, shall we?

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Bill smith's presentation of this quote in a forum dedicated to the discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories is a textbook example of one of the standard 9/11 truther strawman arguments.

It’s not a straw man argument. It is a simple fact of psychology. It is a simple fact of how people think, act and react. This has been known in psychology for a very very long time. It is not disputed.

A straw man argument is a false argument created with falsehoods so it can then be torn down by pointing out those falsehoods and then say “look, they were wrong” (which by coincidence is just exactly what you are doing here Dave)

Tell me where Bill or anyone has done this, or even attempted to do this with this quote?

But you needed to try and prevent people from really understanding that quote because it is dangerous for people to have any introspection into their actions, reactions, motives and beliefs. That is why you knowingly mislabelled it as a “straw man argument”

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

It rests on the assumption that there is no difference between rejecting the specific allegation that the 9/11 attacks were planned and executed by elements within the US Government, and rejecting the general assertion that some governments at some times are corrupt.

Now who is building a straw man argument. Let’s see how this straw man argument is further built up…

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

The aim is to portray as naive and self-deluded those who question the truther account of events with the same level of skepticism that they question the vastly more widely understood account of events, and find that the former is contradicted by, where the latter is supported by, any and all the available evidence.

Dave

And that is what a real straw man argument looks like. Nicely done Dave

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

And here is the next level of deceit. Bill smith has attempted to defend a quote by role reversal. In fact, the "impregnable tightly-written axiom" to which he refers is itself a piece of pop psychology, in that it describes the beliefs of "most people" without reasoning or evidence to support its position, whereas the "piece of pop psychology" is in fact an analysis of the fallacious nature of the argument and is therefore an exercise in logic rather than psychology. One wonders who is likely to be fooled by this rather obvious misrepresentation.

Dave

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Even if it were, it's irrelevant to the specific question of whether the US Government was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, and hence posting it on this forum is an attempt at misdirection.

Dave

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

No. The quote was a sweeping generalisation about psychology uttered by a conspiracist website owner and radio show host. It'd be hard to imagine a better description than "pop psychology".

So you are still trying to imply that the psychology is wrong without saying it is wrong? And hence by implication with the use of your straw man argument that Bill and I are wrong.

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Assuming that you meant "disingenuous", the use of the quote itself was disingenuous. The false syllogism, "Some governments are corrupt, therefore anyone disbelieving the 9/11 truth movement has been deceived by a corrupt government" is a commonly used piece of misdirection on this forum.

Dave

Nice misdirection there Dave, but no truther I know has ever tried to claim this. I have however seen many “debunkers” use this straw man argument.

1 Carry your opponent’s proposition beyond its natural limits; exaggerate it.

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

It rests on the assumption that there is no difference between rejecting the specific allegation that the 9/11 attack…

6 Confuse the issue by changing your opponent’s words or what he or she seeks to prove.
24 State a false syllogism

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

The aim is to portray as naive and self-deluded…

25 If your opponent is making a generalization, find an instance to the contrary.

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

… and rejecting the general assertion that some governments at some times are corrupt.

28 When the audience consists of individuals (or a person) who is not an expert on a subject, you make an invalid objection to your opponent who seems to be defeated in the eyes of the audience.

32 A quick way of getting rid of an opponent’s assertion, or of throwing suspicion on it, is by putting it into some odious category.

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

It'd be hard to imagine a better description than "pop psychology"

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

sweeping generalisation about psychology uttered by a conspiracist website

35 Instead of working on an opponent’s intellect or the rigor of his arguments, work on his motive.

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

The aim is to portray

Psychologically speaking, and “debunking tactics” wise this paragraph of yours is a real doozy…

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

No. The quote was a sweeping generalisation about psychology uttered by a conspiracist website owner and radio show host. It'd be hard to imagine a better description than "pop psychology"

Bottom line is the Mike Rivero quote is accurate...

"Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."

and quoting it here in this forum is valid. It goes to show the psychology behind many JREF'ers actions and reactions and comments. The psychology behind 9/11 is an important part of 9/11, since 9/11 was after all the biggest psyop in history.

[Jackanory]

Originally Posted by SteveAustin

WOW Dave, you have backtracked all the way to “it’s pop psychology”.

Let’s deconstruct your “argument” Dave, shall we?



It’s not a straw man argument. It is a simple fact of psychology. It is a simple fact of how people think, act and react. This has been known in psychology for a very very long time. It is not disputed.

A straw man argument is a false argument created with falsehoods so it can then be torn down by pointing out those falsehoods and then say “look, they were wrong” (which by coincidence is just exactly what you are doing here Dave)

Tell me where Bill or anyone has done this, or even attempted to do this with this quote?

But you needed to try and prevent people from really understanding that quote because it is dangerous for people to have any introspection into their actions, reactions, motives and beliefs. That is why you knowingly mislabelled it as a “straw man argument”



Now who is building a straw man argument. Let’s see how this straw man argument is further built up…



And that is what a real straw man argument looks like. Nicely done Dave





So you are still trying to imply that the psychology is wrong without saying it is wrong? And hence by implication with the use of your straw man argument that Bill and I are wrong.



Nice misdirection there Dave, but no truther I know has ever tried to claim this. I have however seen many “debunkers” use this straw man argument.

1 Carry your opponent’s proposition beyond its natural limits; exaggerate it.


6 Confuse the issue by changing your opponent’s words or what he or she seeks to prove.
24 State a false syllogism


25 If your opponent is making a generalization, find an instance to the contrary.


28 When the audience consists of individuals (or a person) who is not an expert on a subject, you make an invalid objection to your opponent who seems to be defeated in the eyes of the audience.

32 A quick way of getting rid of an opponent’s assertion, or of throwing suspicion on it, is by putting it into some odious category.



35 Instead of working on an opponent’s intellect or the rigor of his arguments, work on his motive.


Psychologically speaking, and “debunking tactics” wise this paragraph of yours is a real doozy…



Bottom line is the Mike Rivero quote is accurate...

"Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."

and quoting it here in this forum is valid. It goes to show the psychology behind many JREF'ers actions and reactions and comments. The psychology behind 9/11 is an important part of 9/11, since 9/11 was after all the biggest psyop in history.

The above is irrelevent and off topic. Take it to science.

However, I see that you are citing from the 'truthers' manual. Hypocricy nows no bounds.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by bill smith

I believe this gem from Mike Rivero absolutely. Who wants to deny this Truth.

"Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."

We vote and you are given an excuse not to think at all as you spew lies made up for you by idiots.

Originally Posted by bill smith

Do you stlll say that we have not gathered enough to justify a new enquiry ?

Lies are not enough. You don't understand 911 so you make up lies.

You post lies about 911 which you don't have to do a thing but post more lies. You posted your problem you believe the propaganda and lies you find about 911 and post your delusions here.

[Dave Rogers]

I was wondering how long it would take SteveAustin to start quoting "38 ways to win an argument" or "How to debunk just about anything". Steve, I suggest you find a third website to use as an appeal to authority; we're getting extremely bored with the first two.

Dave

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by bill smith

This exerpt from another well known person slots in with Mike Rivero's axiom to some extent.

''It would never come into their [the people's] heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation.''

Your best buddy Hitler. Just like a neoNAZI 911 truther to bring in the nut case excepts from Mein Kampf as her support for spreading lies. You are in a NAZI like named movement called "truth" and all you present are lies and you have even blamed Jews like your hero Hitler the murderer and the terrorists you apologize for.

Just like a truther to bring a quote from a failed nut case to a debate on what it true about 911. You bring lies and then quote a liar and murdering idiot with brain rot. You even forgot to acknowledge the source of your quote as being the nut case who killed people.

You pick a big looser to quote when physics explains it all.

Quote:

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." - Albert Einstein

Why do you spread lies?

[Jackanory]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

I was wondering how long it would take SteveAustin to start quoting "38 ways to win an argument" or "How to debunk just about anything". Steve, I suggest you find a third website to use as an appeal to authority; we're getting extremely bored with the first two.

Dave

Yes. The 'twoofer manual'.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by SteveAustin

It’s not a straw man argument. It is a simple fact of psychology. It is a simple fact of how people think, act and react. This has been known in psychology for a very very long time. It is not disputed.


"Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."

A "simple fact of psychology" that isn't borne out by the evidence.

Quote:

The survey suggests 22% of people think government ministers tell the truth - down from 27% in the 2006 survey.

Quote:

Politicians were named the least trustworthy. Only about 20 percent of Americans expressed faith in politicians compared to 10 percent of the French and Italians, 8 percent of Hungarians and 6 percent of Greeks.

Quote:

Survey of Israelis’ Attitudes Toward Politics Finds Disgust and a Growing Apathy
By ISABEL KERSHNER(PDF File)

JERUSALEM — A third of Israelis expressed feelings of nausea, revulsion, depression or despair when asked what they felt or thought about the word “politics,” according to a new survey. Another third said they instinctively associated politics with corruption, betrayal or deceit. The survey, the annual Democracy Index, being published on Tuesday by the Israel Democracy Institute, an independent research organization, also found that only about 60 percent of the public reported any interest in politics, a drop of 15 percentage points from the 2006 survey. Trust in public institutions has eroded significantly, with the army topping the list as the most trustworthy and the prime minister and political parties ranking last.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by SteveAustin

Let’s deconstruct your “argument” Dave, shall we?

In your world, is there a difference between "deconstruct" and "misrepresent"?

Originally Posted by SteveAustin

It’s not a straw man argument. It is a simple fact of psychology. It is a simple fact of how people think, act and react. This has been known in psychology for a very very long time. It is not disputed.

The quote was not what I was describing as a strawman argument, so there's your first misrepresentation. First comment, first lie.

Originally Posted by SteveAustin

But you needed to try and prevent people from really understanding that quote because it is dangerous for people to have any introspection into their actions, reactions, motives and beliefs. That is why you knowingly mislabelled it as a “straw man argument”

And then, compounding the lie, you post your opinion of my motivation, presented as fact.

Originally Posted by SteveAustin

So you are still trying to imply that the psychology is wrong without saying it is wrong? And hence by implication with the use of your straw man argument that Bill and I are wrong.

So far, we have the opinion of a conspiracy theorist radio host and two anonymous posters on an Internet forum that the quote is self-evidently accurate. Not exactly authoritative. The truth is that there are people who take action in the face of a corrupt government, just as there are people who openly admit that their government is corrupt but feel that any action they take will be futile. History is full of counter-examples. In fact, it's central to the truther belief system that truthers are themselves counter-examples.

Originally Posted by SteveAustin

Nice misdirection there Dave, but no truther I know has ever tried to claim this. I have however seen many “debunkers” use this straw man argument.

Now that raises an interesting point. Truthers are in general very good at making insinuations that are never backed up by genuine claims - it's known here as JAQing off. If you ask questions, then when the questions are answered then you can save face by disavowing any suggestion that you believed an incorrect answer to the question. RedIbis is a master of this no-claimer approach. It's basically the same tactic as a political smear campaign - ask leading questions, imply that the answers are highly incriminating, but always avoid committment to any specific position of your own.

I'm cutting out the "38 ways to win an argument" spiel, because I've already pointed out the flaws with it.

Originally Posted by SteveAustin

Bottom line is the Mike Rivero quote is accurate...

"Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."

and quoting it here in this forum is valid. It goes to show the psychology behind many JREF'ers actions and reactions and comments. The psychology behind 9/11 is an important part of 9/11, since 9/11 was after all the biggest psyop in history.

And yet, finally, you're effectively admitting that the purpose of the quote is to argue in favour of US Government involvement in 9/11. Well, if you want to argue in favour of 9/11 psyops on the basis of psychology, I suggest you do a little more research into the subject, instead of just picking a random quote from an uninformed and biased observer and elevating it to the level of ultimate truth.

Dave

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by SteveAustin

Is that your way of saying "I was wrong about Bill's comments and the quotes he used"

That's disingeneous of you Dave, of course it is irrelevant TO THE SPECIFIC QUESTION of whether the US government was responsible, but this is the "general discussion thread" and the psychology behind 9/11 and the psychology of the JREF debunkers is not irrelevant.

Why not throw a quote from Hitler to round out your support for liars and apologies for murdering terrorists?

You and bill smith are posting what is wrong with your movement made up on lies. You are posting your problems and projecting them on others. You and bill smith fail to understand the events of 911 being the acts of 19 terrorists due to lack of knowledge or some other reason and you can't figure it out.

You and bill smith think you have evidence but your evidence bag is missing, empty, and never was. You can't stop posting junk ideas on 911 long enough to recognize you are spewing hearsay, lies and delusions. You made a mistake coming to a skeptic forum with lies, failed opinions, and false ideas.

It is ironic as bill smith quotes people talking about propaganda as he spews brain dead propaganda from 911TruthLies.

[SteveAustin]

Originally Posted by Jackanory

The above is irrelevent and off topic. Take it to science.

So discussing the psyop aspect of 9/11 is off-topic in the "general discussion thread" in the "9/11 CT subforum" forum?

The constant calls of my being off-topic when discussing the psyops is a big clue as to how threathened people are by it

[Jackanory]

Originally Posted by SteveAustin

So discussing the psyop aspect of 9/11 is off-topic in the "general discussion thread" in the "9/11 CT subforum" forum?

The constant calls of my being off-topic when discussing the psyops is a big clue as to how threathened people are by it

lol. I feel more threatened by my grandmother.

Your "the psyop aspect of 9/11" is remarkable. Too much Tom Clancy in your basement Steve. Get some in Steve.

[SteveAustin]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

I was wondering how long it would take SteveAustin to start quoting "38 ways to win an argument" or "How to debunk just about anything". Steve, I suggest you find a third website to use as an appeal to authority; we're getting extremely bored with the first two.

Dave

Appeal to authority


"Also Known as: Fallacious Appeal to Authority, Misuse of Authority, Irrelevant Authority, Questionable Authority, Inappropriate Authority, Ad Verecundiam

Description of Appeal to Authority
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:


Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious."

No one has claimed to be an expert on any subject Dave. Your appeal to authority smear is revealed to be a lie. I have not made any appeal to authority but have only used a handy list of tactics often used by "debunkers" to wiggle their way out of honest discussions.

[bill smith]

Originally Posted by beachnut

Why not throw a quote from Hitler to round out your support for liars and apologies for murdering terrorists?

You and bill smith are posting what is wrong with your movement made up on lies. You are posting your problems and projecting them on others. You and bill smith fail to understand the events of 911 being the acts of 19 terrorists due to lack of knowledge or some other reason and you can't figure it out.

You and bill smith think you have evidence but your evidence bag is missing, empty, and never was. You can't stop posting junk ideas on 911 long enough to recognize you are spewing hearsay, lies and delusions. You made a mistake coming to a skeptic forum with lies, failed opinions, and false ideas.

It is ironic as bill smith quotes people talking about propaganda as he spews brain dead propaganda from 911TruthLies.

Any comment Beachnut ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Q8hl...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EYADSfbHco

[SteveAustin]

Originally Posted by Horatius

A "simple fact of psychology" that isn't borne out by the evidence.

ROFL...

25 If your opponent is making a generalization, find an instance to the contrary.

You do realize you have done nothing to refute the quote right? Most people have "double think" when it comes to their government and can easily hold the two opposing views of "I do not trust the government" and "most people prefer to believe their governments are just and fair" at the same time.

But if you think that quote is simply about "trust in the government" then you have really missed the ball

[DavidJames]

Originally Posted by SteveAustin

ROFL...

25 If your opponent is making a generalization, find an instance to the contrary.

You do realize you have done nothing to refute the quote right? Most people have "double think" when it comes to their government and can easily hold the two opposing views of "I do not trust the government" and "most people prefer to believe their governments are just and fair" at the same time.

But if you think that quote is simply about "trust in the government" then you have really missed the ball

I have an idea, instead of parroting other peoples words, why don't you search this forum for examples of such behavior?

Will you do that?

[johnny karate]

Steve, do you believe the quote in question could be an example of false flag pop psychology?