The 9/11 Forum

Intelligent and evidence-based discussion of 9/11 issues

Skip to content

v

Welcome
Welcome!

Our vision is to provide a home to sincere 9/11 researchers free from biased moderation and abusive tirades from other members.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which only gives you access to view the discussions. New registration has been temporarily enabled; take advantage of it!

Is it an insignificant fringe or not?

Discuss any issues related to 9/11 that don't fall into the other categories.

Is it an insignificant fringe or not?

Postby Major_Tom » Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:06 am

This is a question which underlies much of the exchanges on the internet and within journalism whenever the events of 9/11/01 are examined deeper.

It is expressed clearly within a few posts from another thread which I will quote in full:

OneWhiteEye wrote:This comment by jimd3100 says a lot:

jimd3100 wrote:An odd interest, more interested in small insignificant "fringe" groups tied to 9/11 than the 9/11 event itself.......


I have wondered about this from the very beginning. I don't spend my time arguing with flat-earthers. Why on earth does this insignificant fringe warrant so much more attention than the event itself? There seem to be no end of apologists and excuse-makers for the authorities from certain segments, the same segments who get up and hit the 9/11 forums every morning and all day long to take postshots at the evil truthers who are corroding the very fabric of reality with their nonsense.

There has always been a VERY strange element of "move along there's nothing to see here" furthered by "and if you keep looking, the sky will fall, therefore we must hound you to the ends of the earth." Of the few people who claim that 9/11 Truth is an impediment to uncovering real systemic problems of legitimacy, I see almost zero time spent pursuing such issues and inordinate amounts of time spent mocking nonsense on the insignificant fringe (and also mocking virtually every credible criticism raised as well).

Fucking weird, if you ask me.




This comment is followed by one from Stundie...


stundie wrote:I couldn't agree with you more OWE.

I've asked this very question myself and forgetting the....."They are all shills!".....argument, it doesn't make an ounce of sense.

You have to ask yourself, what would motivate you to get up and go to forums to argue over something you instinctively believe is true.

It makes no sense does it really!

Like you've just said, you don't spend your time arguing with flat earthers because you are comfortable in the knowledge that the earth is round.

So the only conclusion I can come to is that at some level, deep down, they are not 100% convinced by the OCT themselves. They argue so strongly in order to confirm their own bias in the OCT as it's much more comfortable to believe in the OCT than to admit or believe otherwise.

I don't go over to Christian or other religious forums because I'm more than comfortable in the fact that there probably isn't some man in the sky watching over us. If I wasn't comfortable with my own atheist/agnostic position, then I would probably be over at one of the religious forums mocking others for being dumb enough to believe in it. That's the only motivation I can think of.

This can be seen over at the JREF forum, when something which possibly supports the conspiracy side of the argument comes out as true, you will often see plenty of pantomime debunkers say things like "So what?" ....or "Don't care!"... "Why does it matter!" etc etc.

I'm sure this is not the case for all debunkers who come here or at other forums. Some of them know and understand that not all the questions have been answered surrounding 9/11 and are here to do honest research for themselves and to find answers.

Just my 2 pence worth.

Cheers

Stundie :)
Major_Tom
 
Posts: 3277
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 5:04 pm

 

Re: Is it an insignificant fringe or not?

Postby Major_Tom » Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:18 am

Another comment by OWE in relation to these points...


[quote="OneWhiteEye"]To bring it around...

[quote="OneWhiteEye"]This is why I ask, DGM, what are you NOT okay with?


I don't want you to feel uncomfortable or put on the spot, only want to hear any reservations or complaints you have. In the recent reading, I ran across a post almost a year old where you were talking about having connections with one specific victim of 9/11 and families of others. I understand your interest in the subject, it would go without saying even if you had no such connections and only more so when you do.

I don't agree with someone who absolves the government of all culpability, but I respect their right to their opinion. It wasn't an attempt to be derogatory in erroneously saying you'd judged performance was OK. It wouldn't be surprising if that was a majority opinion, I usually find myself in the minority with dissent. My confusion stems from the observation that you have spent considerable time involved in this scene but I don't recall seeing you express displeasure at the response or other aspects.

Now that I know you do at least have reservations, I'd like to know what they are. It's my opinion you should not let these remain submerged all or most of the time. An insignificant fringe doesn't beg the attention an errant public service does.

On this subject, Myriad said something which struck me:

[quote="Myriad"]Yep, the Truth Movement sure did a good job helping to hide the Saudi 9/11 trail. By blaming everyone except the Saudis and the terrorists the Saudis supported (the Mossad, the NWO, the U.S. military, Wall Street insiders, the Mafia, the FDNY, the CIA, a "rogue faction" in the U.S. Government, PNAC, the Bush administration, Silverstein, Jews in general, NIST, etc. etc.) they made it nearly impossible to even discuss the issue, let alone be taken seriously by anyone. Even though the broad outlines (just not all the details in the released pages) were already well known.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11391668&postcount=298

It struck me as ********! Is it an insignificant fringe or not? On the surface, it appears similar to statements I've made and others made by members both here and there, but it's insincere. I've seen many of Myriad's posts over the years and I do not recall once seeing any effort to initiate deviation from the accepted narrative, only deflect it. Nothing has stopped Myriad from ignoring the insignificant fringe or calling out any deficiencies. Instead, only contempt is displayed for any sort of dissent. Then this balderdash ironically comes out in a thread about 28 pages redacted by the US government, not truthers.

So I encourage DGM, anyone, who really does have objections and don't use hypothetical objection as a cheap debate tactic, voice these objections. I certainly do not hear enough of them.
Major_Tom
 
Posts: 3277
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 5:04 pm

Re: Is it an insignificant fringe or not?

Postby Major_Tom » Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:28 am

And another...

OneWhiteEye wrote:
stundie wrote:So the only conclusion I can come to is that at some level, deep down, they are not 100% convinced by the OCT themselves. They argue so strongly in order to confirm their own bias in the OCT as it's much more comfortable to believe in the OCT than to admit or believe otherwise.

By jove, I think you've got it! This would probably elicit strong condemnation if claimed in front of the people in question. Of course! However, it touches on something which does make a lot of sense and actually has some backing. I don't know if you ever saw the "true confession" thread at ISF, where former CTers did their 12-step mantra recitations. "Hi, my name is XXX, and I'm a former truther." Except in AA, they recognize they'll always be alkies.

Some of the most virulent anti-truthers around are ex-truthers! Or at least say they are ex. Like some ex-smokers, they can't stand to see anyone do as they did. And there are a lot of them.

Further, I've occasionally seen cracks in the armor when someone expresses some doubts or concerns, but then the nipping at the heels commences until they get back into line.


Can I nominate your post for a Stundie; you know, the good kind?
Major_Tom
 
Posts: 3277
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 5:04 pm

Re: Is it an insignificant fringe or not?

Postby Major_Tom » Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:37 am

This next comment is also quite an accurate observation which for some reason or other is rarely stated openly:


OneWhiteEye wrote:
stundie wrote:They argue so strongly in order to confirm their own bias in the OCT as it's much more comfortable to believe in the OCT than to admit or believe otherwise.

It's funny, I've heard the exact reverse leveled at truthers. That somehow it's more comfortable to believe your government can do you some kind of way than to believe there are real external enemies who can strike close to home.

:lol:

What's worse, having real external enemies, or having real external enemies AND a government for enemy?

At least a half dozen times since 9/11, I've heard conservative pundits publicly hope for a terrorist action just to show the bleeding hearts what reality is about. Anyone here think that someone of that mindset couldn't possibly be in a position of key responsibility in the CIA or NSA or FBI or ? Jesus, I know people like that. It would be a miracle if they weren't scattered all over the place in positions relevant to a pre 9/11 investigation.

It is not the slightest stretch to believe a person like that would conveniently overlook things, drag their feet, or outright stonewall if they felt it would achieve their personal aims which they doubtless consider to be patriotic in nature. Possibly after seeing the results, surprise and regret but not enough integrity to out themselves and take responsibility.

Pure speculation. It's amazing how many times such speculation has proven to be right on the money, when the rare opportunity for confirmation comes. I do know that assuming competence and integrity as a default is a bad bet. People are people and government employment doesn't change that.



So true.
Major_Tom
 
Posts: 3277
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 5:04 pm

Re: Is it an insignificant fringe or not?

Postby OneWhiteEye » Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:55 am

I reaffirm all you've posted.
OneWhiteEye
 
Posts: 6167
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:40 pm

Re: Is it an insignificant fringe or not?

Postby Major_Tom » Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:59 am

DGM wrote:
OneWhiteEye wrote:All good. Sorry to stack up so much stuff while you're unable to respond, but it's just stream of consciousness. Take your time.


Not a problem.

I just need time to digest in order to respond in a meaningful way.

You made some comments a couple pages back that I will get to. Like I said, I'm not looking to just post knee jerk reaction.

I appreciate your honest feedback.



Maybe this thread is a better place to reply. Some of these are deep questions so there is no need to respond quickly. I want to use this thread to go into some of these points.
Major_Tom
 
Posts: 3277
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 5:04 pm

Re: Is it an insignificant fringe or not?

Postby OneWhiteEye » Mon Sep 12, 2016 1:30 am

Yes, it could get lost in the other thread. The prime question to DGM was: what are you not okay with?

It stemmed from earlier exchange in which I'd assumed DGM was okay with the response to the attacks (as they happened, but implicit in that is years of lead up). DGM indicated that was not the case, therefore the question.

I'll reiterate that I don't wish to put DGM on the spot. No one has to answer a question because it's asked. If anyone else who self-identifies as debunker wants to answer too, by all means.

My premise is one does not need to be a "conspiracy theorist" to have valid complaints about planning, performance, accountability and other various concerns surrounding the event. One can even be a debunker! Yet to have questions or complaints will get you auto-branded as CT in a lot of places, most notably and forcefully at ISF. Unless, of course, you are already alpha... in which case you can spend 5 years toiling away with an average of 20 posts per day showing how an insignificant fringe is c-R-a-z-Y, then **** out one post about how truthers are standing in the way of any legitimate cause for concern.

I think I stand on solid ground calling that weird. I'd like to tell debunkers they have a "safe space" over here and can vent freely without being attacked by the antibodies, but - the antibodies come over here to read, so better be on your guard.
OneWhiteEye
 
Posts: 6167
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:40 pm

Re: Is it an insignificant fringe or not?

Postby OneWhiteEye » Mon Sep 12, 2016 2:02 am

One additional remark at this time, if I may. There are two parts to the phrase, both are regularly claimed in some form or another either together or separately. Insignificant as in unimportant. Fringe as in small per-capita and weird.

How is it debunkers have over the years so steadfastly managed to avoid a much bigger and more important CT demographic, namely the SDIers? SDI - Saddam Did It.

Yeah. **** yeah. Until today, I thought it peaked at 44% of Americans. I saw a credible article (can link if desired) saying 70%. This is neither insignificant nor fringe, this is monumentous and mainstream! It's hard to get 70% of Americans to agree on anything!

It's called the prevailing opinion. Or at least it was at the time.

It facilitated a war, the effects of which last to this day and will stretch on for the foreseeable future. It facilitated acceptance. People's sons and daughters and cousins and parents could be heroes. I recall reading a quote in a mainstream news journal online within a year of the initiation of hostilities. It was from a front line soldier, ostensibly, and he said in part "I'm here to pay back these I-rack-ees for 9/11." [the actual wording and spelling used in the article, to the best of my recollection]

Not insignificant. Not at all.

Where were the rationalists arguing against this mass delusion? Actually, they were there. I saw them. Mostly arguing FOR the delusion, but a significant and non-fringe minority were indeed not drinking the kool-aid and voicing their opinions against this nonsense. Interestingly it's not the same people in the two discussions, for the most part. At ISF, for example, the sets of people arguing politics and CTs are largely disjoint, a phenomena I've seen elsewhere where the two subjects are under the same roof.

I must conclude that there is a demographic, also fringe, which prefers to joust with a "crazy" fringe rather than address real problems, big problems, scary problems.... mainly because at least half of them shared that mass delusion while they tilted at truthers. At least the crazy fringe have a good reason for their focus!
OneWhiteEye
 
Posts: 6167
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:40 pm

Re: Is it an insignificant fringe or not?

Postby ozeco41 » Mon Sep 12, 2016 2:22 am

OneWhiteEye wrote:I'll reiterate that I don't wish to put DGM on the spot. No one has to answer a question because it's asked. If anyone else who self-identifies as debunker wants to answer too, by all means.

There is the core definitional problem.

The whole debate from about 2010 on has become a big "false dichotomy". polarised into two extreme factions. With dominating presumption - both ways IMO - that one "side" is right and the other side "wrong" AND the global implication of "on everything".

Few of us are supporters of 100% of the "official reports" But since whatever date we became polarised trying to identify what particular shade of grey you are has become problematic. Not the least because none of it is "shades of grey". It is "Agree", "Disagree", "Haven't formed an opinion yet" for each separable issue. We can be "for" some and "agin" others - and I certainly don't/wont align 100% with either extreme.

And most folk committed to the "polarised two camps model" wont even allow the third option {"I don't know, don't care, have no reason to form judgement, cannot get enough data to help me judge etc etc etc) even at issue level.

I've posted my own strategic "two way partitioning" status many times viz:

The 9/11 CT issues can legitimately be separated into:
1) Technical; and
2) "socio-political".

(And a third which I won't address now - "The psychology of individual and group dynamics involved in 9/11 discussion)

I see ZERO case for the main 4 technical claims (or 5 or 6 depending how we count them) - yes there is a lot of detailed explanation incomplete.

I see many issues raised in the socio-political arena which are clearly NOT resolved.

AND I have suggested that the strategies of AE911, Szamboti, Cole et al are a barrier to progress for legitimate truther concerns in the s-political arena. Whilst ever "they" persist in false technical complaints they provide a distraction or easy opt out for any political operative to avoid the political issues.
ozeco41
 
Posts: 1297
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:03 am

Re: Is it an insignificant fringe or not?

Postby ozeco41 » Mon Sep 12, 2016 2:26 am

We just "crossed in posting".

I won't try the "blended mix-and-match" but our two posts are largely complementary.

IMNSHO
ozeco41
 
Posts: 1297
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:03 am

Re: Is it an insignificant fringe or not?

Postby OneWhiteEye » Mon Sep 12, 2016 2:58 am

[quote="ozeco41"]AND I have suggested that the strategies if AE911, Szamboti, Cole et al are a barrier to progress for legitimate truther concerns in the s-political arena. Whilst ever "they" persist in false technical complaints they provide a distraction or easy opt out for any political operative to avoid the political issues.

Yes, there is a barrier. But is it because of the insignificant numbers supporting those claims? Granted, at any point, we can agree to drop the "insignificant" descriptor. We. Here. And it will have no bearing on the rest of the world. Whatever truism exists concerning "insignificant fringe" merits disclaimers wherever significance is implied or explicitly stated. Something like "I don't believe they're insignificant because..."

Here, I have my own. I don't believe they're insignificant because I once got the eyeroll in casual conversation when I wanted to bring up collapse mechanics. With a physicist. Not a huge thing, mind you, but I don't have a lot of experience talking 9/11 anything in face to face conversation. I don't bring it up. No one does. And maybe that's a huge thing.

Point being, it's either significant or it isn't. If it's insignificant, then any barrier comes from general taint. This is what I believe to be the case for sociopolitical issues.

It didn't take 9/11 truthers or Sz in particular to make this a thing; there's an article on Alternet from yesterday about the CIA fostering the use of and ridicule surrounding the term "conspiracy theorist". Sure, sure, an article by Ron Unz, someone pointed that out. Like all the articles on there praising Clinton's human rights record, commitment to social justice, and glowing health are somehow more credible...

Unz or not, true or not? I vote yes. Why? My litmus test. Would I do it if I were them? Yes. I could be wrong, but I'm a nice person and most of them are not, so the reckoning goes accordingly. It's a brilliant killer of all things which might dare question an engineered status quo. It lets Alternet post articles dismissing concerns over Clinton's health as "conspiracy theories". Hell, man, almost every time I hear that phrase trotted out these days I suspect there is a conspiracy! It's too perfect, it's like the ultimate insecticide. (I should try it at work next time I **** up)

Yes, there's a barrier, but all the "crazy" AE911Truth et al are responsible for peddling definitely didn't put it there or make it appreciably larger. Unless they actually have a lot more traction than the opposition acknowledges. One, or the other.

All the same, with anywhere from half to two-thirds of Americans once believing there was a direct tie to Saddam Hussein, their traction will never be anywhere as large on anything.
OneWhiteEye
 
Posts: 6167
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:40 pm
Top

Re: Is it an insignificant fringe or not?

Postby ozeco41 » Mon Sep 12, 2016 4:38 am

[quote="OneWhiteEye"][quote="ozeco41"]AND I have suggested that the strategies if AE911, Szamboti, Cole et al are a barrier to progress for legitimate truther concerns in the s-political arena. Whilst ever "they" persist in false technical complaints they provide a distraction or easy opt out for any political operative to avoid the political issues.

Yes, there is a barrier. But is it because of the insignificant numbers supporting those claims? Granted, at any point, we can agree to drop the "insignificant" descriptor. We. Here.
To this stage of your post it is a "balance of two factors" consideration set in some sort of context.

The need in the context is for critical mass to support taking something forward.

The two - so far identified - factors are:
1) Is there enough weight - aka numbers of persuasive persons to have cumulative effect; AND
2) The inherent truth or falsity of the issue. (inherent - "genuine" truth NOT perception. And yes I know.... :roll: )

And the "dream" is can those two work together to gain critical mass>>>progress.

Pause there.

Because you next step is to bring in the issues of "contextual noise" including "external manipulation"

...specific example the CIA spin program.

So that is ONE example of the class of factor group 3)

END OF FIRST INSIGHT

The next comments not yet set in relationship to the previous bits. Top of the head stuff before I go do some work.

And it will have no bearing on the rest of the world. Whatever truism exists concerning "insignificant fringe" merits disclaimers wherever significance is implied or explicitly stated. Something like "I don't believe they're insignificant because..."

Here, I have my own. I don't believe they're insignificant because I once got the eyeroll in casual conversation when I wanted to bring up collapse mechanics. With a physicist. Not a huge thing, mind you, but I don't have a lot of experience talking 9/11 anything in face to face conversation. I don't bring it up. No one does. And maybe that's a huge thing.
Too much wooly edges formeto comment in the two minutes I have.

Point being, it's either significant or it isn't. If it's insignificant, then any barrier comes from general taint. This is what I believe to be the case for sociopolitical issues.
YES EXCEPT you areengaging in global genralisations - binary - yes no. And we need to tease out the shades of grey AND separable aspects.

It didn't take 9/11 truthers or Sz in particular to make this a thing; there's an article on Alternet from yesterday about the CIA fostering the use of and ridicule surrounding the term "conspiracy theorist". Sure, sure, an article by Ron Unz, someone pointed that out. Like all the articles on there praising Clinton's human rights record, commitment to social justice, and glowing health are somehow more credible...

Unz or not, true or not? I vote yes. Why? My litmus test. Would I do it if I were them? Yes. I could be wrong, but I'm a nice person and most of them are not, so the reckoning goes accordingly. It's a brilliant killer of all things which might dare question an engineered status quo. It lets Alternet post articles dismissing concerns over Clinton's health as "conspiracy theories". Hell, man, almost every time I hear that phrase trotted out these days I suspect there is a conspiracy! It's too perfect, it's like the ultimate insecticide. (I should try it at work next time I **** up)

Yes, there's a barrier, but all the "crazy" AE911Truth et al are responsible for peddling definitely didn't put it there or make it appreciably larger. Unless they actually have a lot more traction than the opposition acknowledges. One, or the other.

All the same, with anywhere from half to two-thirds of Americans once believing there was a direct tie to Saddam Hussein, their traction will never be anywhere as large on anything.
Yes but - same provisos -watch the genralsing global implications.

CUL8R
ozeco41
 
Posts: 1297
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:03 am
Top

Re: Is it an insignificant fringe or not?

Postby DGM » Mon Sep 12, 2016 6:39 pm

OneWhiteEye wrote:Yes, it could get lost in the other thread. The prime question to DGM was: what are you not okay with?


Yes, it did get lost in the other thread and then forgotten by myself. I apologize.

OneWhiteEye wrote:It stemmed from earlier exchange in which I'd assumed DGM was okay with the response to the attacks (as they happened, but implicit in that is years of lead up). DGM indicated that was not the case, therefore the question.


Our exchange was (in my mind) limited to the response that day. I have no issues with the response because I see them in the context of years leading up and the belief that threat would come from the outside. Growing up in the 60/70's this was always thought to be the case. The fall of the Soviet Union put most fears to rest. Air base closures were common and no one gave much of a thought when the issue of cutting military spending on homeland security came around because it hadn't';t been tested or even threatened for the most part.

OneWhiteEye wrote:I'll reiterate that I don't wish to put DGM on the spot. No one has to answer a question because it's asked. If anyone else who self-identifies as debunker wants to answer too, by all means.


No need to worry.

As you mentioned up thread, I did know someone that was killed in the South Tower. I've also gotten to meet others through memorials after the fact. I "debunk" because I find it offensive that people with nothing more then circumstantial evidence claim my government killed my friend. The whole idea of controlled demolition is the only reason I started posting almost 10 years ago now. The whole idea is baseless and nothing presented in the last ten years has changed my mind on this.

To answer your question about aspects I have issues with.

I'd like a better understanding about what we actually knew before hand. I know the communication between agencies was poor. I'm not looking for a scapegoat. It was what it was and I see measures to correct the issues. The "28 pages" to me were nothing spectacular, nothing we already didn't know. Bottom line, without 20/20 hindsight I haven't seen anything to suggest we made this happen to ourselves. Did we allow it through complacency? Yes.

I'm rushed a bit at the moment. I'm sure we can discuss this further.
DGM
 
Posts: 397
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 9:33 pm

Re: Is it an insignificant fringe or not?

Postby SanderO » Mon Sep 12, 2016 7:57 pm

Some of my posts were lost.

To respond to this:

Did we allow it through complacency? Yes.

Well yes and no... we don't really have a legal effective means to prevent crimes... aside from catching them in the act of criminal behavior... or conspiring to commit a crime. The later is a hard case to prove but an arrest on conspiracy might have blown the whole thing up and got the public to wake up from their complacency. It would not necessarily have gotten a debate on the root causes and that is the one that needs to take place and then change what we were doing to foster the growth of terrorism.
SanderO
 
Posts: 1968
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:29 am
Location: ny

Re: Is it an insignificant fringe or not?

Postby DGM » Mon Sep 12, 2016 11:45 pm

Major_Tom wrote:
Maybe this thread is a better place to reply. Some of these are deep questions so there is no need to respond quickly. I want to use this thread to go into some of these points.


You have a good point.

Also in this thread I'd like to consider context of that day (and the years leading up). You can't consider a question "deep" unless you look at it from the perspective of that moment.

This is when it gets tough. There is no video evidence or physical evidence for that matter. This goes into the feeling of that day (and before). History is full of cases of complacency, be kind when you judge what was found to be wrong after the fact. :wink:

Is this where our age get's revealed? :)
DGM
 
Posts: 397
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 9:33 pm

Next



Return to Other Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron

suspicion-preferred