So Whose Fault Is It "9/11 Truth" Was An Abysmal Failure?

[chump]

Canadian_watcher, that was poetry (I amended your typo's, I hope you dont mind).

Along with the banker bailout, 9/11 made me realize that people will very likely never, ever get outraged enough to upset the hierarchy we live under. So I should make the most of my paycheque and either buy into the system whole hog, or check out of it to the extent that that's possible.

And with that new mindset I feel the pain of compromise as I choose to stand on the edge, neither buying in nor checking out ... until later, when my decision will affect only myself.

More of a watcher than a doer eh? Me too man, me too. We aren't a threat to anyone. We are not extremists. We are moderates. And we present no threat of violence, quite the opposite. We see the world is already full of violence practiced by the strong upon the weak. You see, we are just intrigued when we notice that a very great deal of deception is being practiced. There's no way around it. You have to learn to use your own common sense and reason. You see, lies transform into PR. And the mass english speaking global media is full of bought and paid for PR. It's advocacy, it's propaganda, it's advertising, it's Mind Kontrol. The truth is a consideration only so far as it is profitable to the media corporations. Look closely at what they are saying. Establish the facts. Improve your informational diversity. Then you can come to your own conclusions, if there are any to be had.

Yeah! I must say that I agree. I'll just add that Ghandi wasn't an extremist; and everyday is a new day. This is the 21st century's version of the universal struggle that confronts every generation.

[Sounder]

AD wrote...

Secondly, the article I posted represents the thoughts of the person or persons who wrote it- and I didn't write it.

Uh, yeah AD we know you did not write it, but you sure don’t mind trying to fill our time with propaganda bullshit articles. This is why the following was written;

Love your strategy AD of having half baked articles to do your talking for you. You wouldn’t want to take responsibility for putting out your own lame rationales after all.

When you then say; ‘hey I didn’t write it’, you agreed with what I said rather than refuting it. How about you try talking for yourself sometime and stop hiding behind production line propaganda. Thank-you

[American Dream]

So, Sounder, if you can refrain from ad hominems long enough to simply state what your position is with regards to all this, I'd be happy to respond at least once to any issues you might be trying to raise.

What is your point?

[Sounder]

There you go AD, thanks for speaking to me rather than speaking around me.

I will try to be simple and direct lest the point be lost. Most of the time when a link is posted, the presenter will include some sort of criticism or comment on the linked article. This provides other readers with perspective and an idea of how that poster thinks. This is good because we will communicate better to the degree that we understand each others thinking.

You on the other hand tend to post crap articles without comment. That makes it feel to me like you do not have a mind of your own or you have no intention of revealing whatever mind you do have.

Also, could you please indicate in what way and how the preceding post was an ad hominem. Maybe you are right but I thought I was saying; ‘stop posting those crap articles and trying to infect my brainspace worse than it already is.’


Here, I’ll make the same point again just in case AD.

When a quality poster comments on the board they will pick at the source material, trying to validate elements with external references while also looking for weak spots in the narrative both micro and macro. This process reveals the biases and depth of the presenter allowing the audience to make their own decisions in regard to both the sources and the presenter.

To take Alice for example, when she writes we can see her heart and soul pouring out of her writing. Plus her facts are well marshaled and she sees and robustly supports a larger theme. I may not agree or go as far as she does with that theme but along the way I am educated and provided with material that will need to be integrated into any successful larger view of reality anyway.

So it is time well spent.

I would like to spend time with folk like Alice and instead I’m spending time with you.

The point is that I think this is your goal, to take up bandwidth, and while that is whatever it is, I’m hoping that a little brushback on your crap bullshit posting habits might leave just a tad bit more room for the rest of us here to cogitate in.

The point is, unless you can show that you can think for yourself, you are of use only as an example of how form without substance bankrupts the individual as well as the society.

At any rate, because you will anyway, do carry on AD.

[American Dream]

Hi Sounder-

I just have a quick second here but I will say, as I have said many times before, I do not come here mostly for socializing or conversation. I come here more so as a researcher who wants to find interesting information and analysis, and to share some too. The bulk of what I post here is articles.

If I say something in my own voice, I mean it. If I post somebody else's article, it doesn't mean I do or don't think it is well written, agree or disagree with the facts and analysis cited, or think that the story they tell is or isn't complete. It just means I thought the article was relevant enough to share, so that other people can engage their critical thinking skills with it.

I also have the idea that you differ with some of the opinions that I have expressed, Sounder. Can you say something about that, especially as it relates to "9/11 Truth" issues?

[Sounder]

The bulk of what I post here is articles.

And as I indicated AD, that is my issue with you. This is an issue because 95% of those articles are the product of the great Wurlitzer, and we are trying to see through this thing not be further swamped by its material, especially if there is no attempt at deconstruction to accompany the next wave.

If you cannot get this point, well I don’t know what else to say.

As it happens AD we seem to think a lot alike about many issues, but I don’t care what you think. I care about how you think, and frankly I find how you think to be one dimensional, divisive, and with no comprehension, care or respect for depth of thinking in others.

So once again, pretty please stop posting those crap articles.

[Wombaticus Rex]

Sounder, I would like to point out that from my nervous system, you're totally mis-characterizing AD, who posts superb brainfood that I'm consistently grateful for. I find AD to be a worthy filter 80-90% of the time which is as good as a primate can hope for, and then some. AD is a good part of our information ecosystem as far as I've ever seen.

[Sounder]

Wombat, it may be that I have got it wrong about AD. Still it seems to me that AD does not help with the filtering aspect in that he does not provide context or critique for the articles he posts.

If he is cornered on anything he simply says; Oh I only have a second or I'm not really into conversation. If this is not a red flag for you, that’s fine, but it is for me. My aspiration is to engage with other thinkers and instead it feels like my only contact is with spam bots.

And AD, how is it that what I said earlier was ad hominem?

[MacCruiskeen]

I'm seconding Sounder on this. It is is disingenuous at best for AD to have posted that crap and now to be equivocating about whether and to what extent he agrees with any of it. Instead, his entire first-hand input is to hand out homework assignments to others, inviting their "thoughts" on the crap he has just posted, allegedly innocently.

Life is too short for this.

[Canadian_watcher]

Canadian_watcher, that was poetry (I amended your typo's, I hope you dont mind).

Along with the banker bailout, 9/11 made me realize that people will very likely never, ever get outraged enough to upset the hierarchy we live under. So I should make the most of my paycheque and either buy into the system whole hog, or check out of it to the extent that that's possible.

And with that new mindset I feel the pain of compromise as I choose to stand on the edge, neither buying in nor checking out ... until later, when my decision will affect only myself.

More of a watcher than a doer eh? Me too man, me too. We aren't a threat to anyone. We are not extremists. We are moderates. And we present no threat of violence, quite the opposite. We see the world is already full of violence practiced by the strong upon the weak. You see, we are just intrigued when we notice that a very great deal of deception is being practiced. There's no way around it. You have to learn to use your own common sense and reason. You see, lies transform into PR. And the mass english speaking global media is full of bought and paid for PR. It's advocacy, it's propaganda, it's advertising, it's Mind Kontrol. The truth is a consideration only so far as it is profitable to the media corporations. Look closely at what they are saying. Establish the facts. Improve your informational diversity. Then you can come to your own conclusions, if there are any to be had.

I know I'm pompous. I'm sorry about that.

and I'm dense.. 'cause right up till that last line I thought you were agreeing with me.
If you WERE, good. If you WERE NOT, then go fuck yourself. I kid.

[Sounder]

And AD, how is it that what I said earlier was ad hominem?

Thanks Mac. And thanks to you too Wombat, you are helping me to maintain better composure.
From upthread on second look.
AD wrote….

Firstly, I don't even know who Larry O'Hara is. And I'm not going to look him up right now either.

Then its irresponsible to link yet one more time, isn’t it? And thanks Hammer of Los, I missed this citing by you and the earlier Larry O’Hara inspired crap thread that AD started. I try my best to avoid shit, but here I am getting pulled by the vortex yet again. Anybody out there that wants to retreat to a quiet place and talk some philosophy with me? I’m starving.

The following from slimmouse gives some perspective on Larry. But that is not perspective that you, AD seem to have any intention of using to refine your take on Larry O’Hara. You are Peter in the garden, now waiting for the cock to crow for the third time..

In some ways, its extremely appropriate that this threads gone to shit.

It started with a pile of shit in the form of a link to the cult watch "Notes from the borderland" team.

I have to say in truth, that I am impressed by the bibliography of the recent NFTB "Work in progress". Last time I went anywhere near that site a couple of years ago, anything that even remotely contradicted the official story was considered derisible.

Their late entry into even peering at 9/11 is something which I find particularly fascinating since this was one of the reasons they were citing for David Shayler being cointel- namely that he "suddenly appeared on the 9/11 truth scene 2 years after the event ".

Meanwhile, they themselves, having laughed and ridiculed us conspiracy theorists for a good 2 years have apparently almost slithered into a "definite maybe" position.

I wonder what made them change their minds?

It must have been all that time they spent on the 9/11 UK site laughing at people who believed they saw towers being blown to hell that day.

I guess if you wait 5 years instead of 2, and then can somehow conflate CD with "pods and holograms" that doesn’t make you suspect.

I guess if like messrs O Hara and co, you have spent years studying and analyzing "deep parapolitics", which you claim to understand better than most, and yet not see the official story of 9/11 for the pile of bullshit that it is for almost 6 years after the event, then your just being "ultra - studious" in your standpoint.

Larry O hara and Paul Stott. Too funny.

[American Dream]

I'm sorry to say that the conversation is going nowhere as far as I can tell. Too much personal-based argumentation, not enough issue-based. If and when we can improve this, I may be up for further dialogue, but it will have to be on a different thread at a different time.

For now the comments I made previously in this thread will have to do for my own statement of position regarding these aspects of 9/11 Truth:

I want to clarify a few things about my own position, since there seem to be a lot of assumptions about that.

Firstly, I don't even know who Larry O'Hara is. And I'm not going to look him up right now either.

Secondly, the article I posted represents the thoughts of the person or persons who wrote it- and I didn't write it.

As to Alex Jones, David Icke, and Loose Change, I do think that for all of them, half their facts are correct, at least. It's their conclusions that I'm most concerned about.

The "Jew bashers"- not even sure who that means specifically.

Shayler, and to a lesser degree Machon both seem like they should be handled with care, though I wouldn't personally speculate about their intent without much more information.

The statement "World power is not a neat pyramidal structure with aliens, Jews or a cabal of men with a secret handshake at the top..." I agree with. I personally think that looking for an ecology of deep power makes more sense than somehow finding the ultimate smoky room. Others are entitled to their own biases and opinions but I'd like to hear them make a cogent argument for their point of view.

As to who I actually like in 9/11 Theory, Peter Dale Scott ranks very high.

I hope that helps clarifies things a bit.

[Hammer of Los]

Oh Sounder, I think we have been quite mean enough to poor old AD for one day. You know he's only going to go post that damn thing again in another year or so, or whenever another decent chance comes up. Just remember, AD knows nothing about Larry O'Hara and Paul Stott and 911 cultwatch. On the other hand, I know that he has linked to that piece (at least) three times now on these forums. I remember it well, because the cultwatch site was the inspiration for one of my very first posts on these forums.

Oh, and Canadian_watcher my dear fellow, I was agreeing with you. In fact I was struck by how what you said resonated with my own feelings. I felt quite moved, hence my remark about poetry. I'm not sure how you could have interpreted what I posted as critical of yourself. It was certainly intended to be a positive remark.

[Sounder]

Too much personal-based argumentation, not enough issue-based.



Yeah nevermind AD , I don't want to trouble your beautiful mind.

[eyepen]

I rather like the way you lined up that nerdy gnarly little skidrow dance hall sounder. For some reason, it has a bizarre and sort of surreal appearance...