Is it just me or has there been an influx of new debunkers here since

the new Pentagon video was released?:shrug:

The term "debunker" refers to someone that exposes a sham or untruth, but I believe that what YOU are talking about are the large numbers of persons who are here for purposes other than seeking the truth about what happened on September 11, 2001.

As far as debunking goes, the vast majority of THAT is being done...quite well...by the likes of seatnineb, petgoat, mirandapriestly, rayubinger(sp), spooked911 and many many others.

official theory. There seems to an influx of people who are rabid defenders of the official theory and deride any who doubt the official theory.

There have always been a group of articulate DUers who oppose those who doubt the official theory but the numbers of new OT defenders seem to have increased dramatically since the new Pentagon video was released.

then a bunch more for the Pentagon release, you're right. For the last few days it's been kind of nice,though, they must be plotting their next attack.:)

n/t

although it should just come out of the 1 trillion 9-11 slush fund ;).

We often use the term "debunkers' or "so called debunkers" to describe defenders of the official story, ie critics of the 9/11 truth movement, but as Americus points out, you can only "debunk" an assertion that is "bunk" or "bunkem", ie lies.

I used to call them "official conspiracy theory apologists" or OCTAs but no one knew what I was talking about.

But whatever you call them, yes there has been an influx. It is also because they breed in this swamp:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=247

and plan their raids on the 9/11 forum from there.

To many the official theory is bunk. To others who support the OT the alternative theories are bunk.

So who gets to be a debunker?

while exhibiting very little in the way of truth or critical thinking skills.

Oh, and don't flatter yourself that we plan anything in the skeptics forum. You people here have enough of a hard time keeping your paranoid conspiracy theories straight without any comments from us.

Concrete cores.
Thermite.
Missiles.
No airplane debris.
No body parts.
Multiple identities.
Freeish fall.
Dr. Jones.
Loose Change, versions 1, 2, 3, xp and vista
etc
etc
etc

All the while complaining about how the "truth" is once again being relegated to the dungeon, away from the bright, shiny lights of GD.

Perhaps it's just that every time a 911Truther post one of their pet theories in GD, and then it gets moved here, a few rational, free-thinking DU'ers find their way to the 9/11 Forum, and decide to voice their opinion on some of the specious theories floating about this echo chamber.

I don't post here very often, because I don't actually own enough tin-foil to engage in the discussion. I do, however, like to lurk, because there are a few very excellent posters in this group, who tire effortlessly to keep the discussion in the reality-based world. It's inspiring to see those high-quality posters stay on and on.

Sid

take exception to this statement. "a few rational, free-thinking DU'ers find their way to the 9/11 Forum". There is in fact many rational, free-thinking DUers that find their way here. They're called truth-seekers. A couple of examples are petgoat, mirandapriestly,rman, etc. The "revenoors" do provide somewhat of a service when they post here though. More precisely, their efforts at promoting the government fantasy simply helps to re-enforce the notion that we are on the right track. Cters take the available evidence and form needed questions that should be answered. Gubment shills take the available evidence, ask no questions, and expect rational people to accept irrational statements without question. I for one, am down on my knees thankful that I am not made of such material as those who would promote the lies and deceptions of this illegal government. And that, in a nutshell, is what the gubment shills are here for. A couple of exceptions may be possible, in that they actually believe that 19 Arabs with boxcutters hijacked four passenger jets, and managed to hit three of four targets against the most advanced defense system in the world. Which makes me even more thankful that I am who I am. Thanks.
quickesst

Though I think using the term CTers (conspiracy theorists) plays into the hands of OCT.

Doubting the official theory does not mean embracing a conspiracy theory. I think that there are two distinct elements at play. Firstly there is the step of boubting the official theory. Secondly
there is the step of putting forward alternate theories.

People doubt the OT should never assume the label of being CTers.


Furthermore the OT is a conspiracy theory of the worst sort because it is presented as providing a complete picture of what exactly happened and who were involved when even a cursory look at the events belie their conclusions.

Oooh, I better stop saying debunkers I didn't really think of that. I like OCT, it really pisses them off and they say "The official story is proven beyond a doubt! It's not a conspiracy theory". That is exactly what it is and a kooky one at that.

important to not only fervently defend the OCT but to deride those who are asking questions of an adminstration that has done nothing but lie about one thing after another.

and upon inspection, most of them rarely post anything very political in other DU forums, they mostly just make banal small talk, if they post at all in anything other than 911. Plus, this is DU we are DU'ers and they come here and call us names, so you gotta wonder.

I read somewhere that the PR firm(s) hired to undermine efforts to uncover the truth about 9/11 save money by having one person post under several different usernames. The article likened it to the petals on a Daisy flower.

could you cite a source, please?

Sid

Edit: bad typing.

"Some PR firms have also planted ringers in online chat rooms--paid consultants who defend their clients while concealing their financial ties to the company being discussed."

"A small industry is emerging among(PR)consultants who specialize in spinning online discussions to favor the positions of companies and interest groups," the New York Times reported in October 1999.

snip

According to Mindshare Internet Campaigns, a firm in Washington, DC, its staffers "regularly adopt pseudonyms and participate in online discussions on behalf of some clients."

According to Mindshare's Shabbir J. Safdar, some of his clients pay hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for Internet monitoring and intervention. "I've seen some big price tags," Safdar said. "I've seen clients who were very, very worried and would plunk down large sums of money." "



http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2002Q1/web.html

and have been talked about at DU many times. However, the poster indicated that:



I was more wondering about the PR firms hired to undermine 9/11 "truth", than the existence of astroturfing or sockpuppets.

Sid

Edit: fixed wording

there are uncanny similarities between some of their posts. Like they will use an adjective that I have never seen before and another poster will use the same obscure adjective and I just get "the feeling" that they are someone else by their tone. They "sound" like another person. The techniques used vary. The goal seems to be preventing the OP/idea from ever reaching fruition (receiving credibility by ridicule, or getting people to research so that it has "legs"). It isn't all "oct" people, I don't think , some pose as "limited hangout" (part of the conspiracy is true, but they ridicule other parts). But we all do that to some degree so you can't suspect someone every time they do it. Some do it all the time, though, and they come across as being "part of the movement" so you sort of subconsciously want to please them.

So that's what "daisy" meant, I have seen that before. Some poster here won the "daisy" award on some web site, I wondered what it meant now I know.

OTOH, some also "change personalities" over the years;))

I'm aware of one here which has an interesting military background and was outspoken not too long ago. There is also a second one that could be a superior and is usually quiet. Don't ask me how I got this info. ;) . They are easy to spot once you know how to look.

They use identical mannerisms. Several of them have a sort of "out of it" quality with the phrases they use. The words they use look like they read them in a manual for internet slang from 10 years ago or something and their names have this sort of generic, impersonal quality.

It's very hard for most people to rap their heads around the idea that their own government could do this to them.

I've seen people when they finally 'see the light' and it is usually devastating.

Who gets to be a debunker? To many the official theory is bunk. To others who support the OT the alternative theories are bunk.

I take it that you support the OT.

I'm sure there'll be a fresh influx of MIHOPers the next time a left-wing site like KOS de-loons.

Haven't seen this mentioned on this board, so here goes:

http://forpressfound.blogspot.com/2006/05/911-inside-job-come-out-of-white-house.html

Reynolds stated that everyone in the worldwide intelligence community knew that 9/11 was an inside job as soon as it happened, with the obvious stand-down of US air defenses, controlled demolition of the World Trade Center, and non-protection of the President in Florida being the biggest tip-offs. The head of the Russian equivalent of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the former head of the German intelligence service Andreas Von Bulow, former National Security Agency official Wayne Madsen, and former MI-6 agent David Schayler have all openly called 9/11 an inside job, while former CIA official Ray McGovern has confirmed this directly in private, and indirectly in public by way of his ringing endorsement of David Ray Griffin‚s work on 9/11.

Reynolds, who served as George W. Bush‚s Labor Department Chief Economist in 2001-2002, believes that a 9/11 truth victory is looming on the near-term horizon.

He predicted that one or more of the 9/11 insiders will soon „give it up'' and come forward with what they know, saying „Remember, you heard it here first.'' He said that most of those complicit in the attacks did not realize how over-the-top the plot was, due to the need-to-know compartmentalization of such covert operations, and that some semi-complicit individuals will probably be coming forward. Reynolds said that most of his email acquaintances are now worried that the 9/11 truth movement is going to win, triggering the greatest Constitutional crisis in U.S. history. For Reynolds, this is less a cause for worry than for rejoicing: „We need a Constitutional crisis!''

Reynolds argued that 9/11 truth is a matter of extreme urgency, since the perpetrators seem to be preparing another 9/11-style terror hoax as a pretext for attacking Iran with nuclear weapons.

======================================

Hmmm... 6/6/6 is coming in less than a week and the rapturistas would view an attack on american soil as Gabriel's horn marking the beginning of the war of End of Days... maybe a small tactical nuke on a mid size midwestern city?

I wouldn't put anything past these bastards.

Rumour has it that Rummie is already practizing for the next one.

You've posted some interesting comments that I didn't see on has site such as Reynold's observation that "most of those complicit in the attacks did not realize how over-the-top the plot was, due to the need-to-know compartmentalization of such covert operations" is very interesting. This idea that no one knew the whole picture explains (if it was an inside job) how so many people would be involved.


BTW welcome to DU.:hi:

because if I do I am a "lunatic" according to "Taxloss" . Where else have I seen that kind of thinking before ? Oh yeah, Free Republic. Just a coincidence I'm sure.

1: Everyone who doesn't believe in MIHOP automatically believes everything about this offical version. This simply isn't true, the official version is flawed in a lot of ways. But that doesn't mean that the US government was behind the attacks.

1a: If you don't believe in MIHOP you are automatic not on the left. See above.

So what you're posing is a "false dichotomy" - "You're either with us or against us", "support the war or the terrorists win", "support the president or you hate America". Where have I seen that thinking before? Oh, yeah, Free Republic.

but then, by responding to you, am I really responding to myself? Apparently we're all just sockpuppets of the same PR firm that has been hired to undermine the 9/11 "truth" movement.

Sid

but then, by responding to you two, am I really responding to myself? Apparently we're all just sockpuppets of the same PR firm that has been hired to undermine the 9/11 "truth" movement.

Parenthetically, I have to add that (a) I find the new terminology being hyped by some of the "new" CTers rather amusing; (b) I haven't received payment yet from the PR firm ~ what's up with that?; and (c) As time goes on, it's more and more amusing to just watch CTers self-destruct as they are wont to do on the vast majority of threads here without even requiring any input of logical, analytical or critical thought.

Cheers,
Jazz

and a valid one, you DO ridicule and try to shut down conversation and that IS what freepers do. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with what I posted.
You people have a hard time with abstract thinking,I've noticed. You misunderstand distinctions like that. You don't contribute but criticize\ridicule others who take the time and effort to read about, research 9-11. I still recall the way you fled from that post you started showing how the Landmark building looked nothing like what happened at the wtc - you couldn't answer anybody's questions.

Post and run indeed. I stopped responding because I had answered all the questions asked, but my answers were ignored. My questions were also ignored. Perhaps if the MIHOPers could come up with a coherent internally consistent theory for what happened that day rather than a ragbag of incoherent evidence and flawed suppositions, we could have a serious disccussion.

The lie you exhibited is the oft-stated assertion that if you do not believe in MIHOP, you believe in the "OCT". This is simply not true, it is demonstrably untrue, and yet you continue to repeat it. Repeating something you know to be untrue is called lying.

Also, when you talk about "taking the time to research 9/11" and all the reading you've done, you disregard all the reading that contradicts MIHOP that others have done. You reject engineering journals, Scientific American, Nature, the BBC, Noam Chomsky, John Pilger, The Guardian, aviation journals and the like, and instead focus your research on a handful of paranoid conspiracy sites.

You are not posting from a position of evidence, but from one of faith. You no doubt feel the same way about me. But until you can explain how two of the world's largest buildings were prepped for demolition without the power being shut off and without anyone noticing, I'm unprepared to take your position seriously.

I recall you made the remark that there were no shock waves which you sited as more "proof" that wtc wasn't a CD. You never responded to the fact that there were shock waves measured by Columbia University and visible from a nearby helicopter as well as camera evidence.
Most of the posts in that thread were a flame fest involving an OCT poster who posted late at night after having a few too many, who has since been replaced by a similar poster.
Of course there are going to be articles which don't support government involvement! Initially, of course, I read them (The Guardian I would not consider OCT, however, I'm patiently awaiting "Armed Madhouse" by Greg Palast to arrive). I didn't start seriously doubting the OCT until after reading "the New Pearl Harbor" and "Crossing the Rubicon". THEN I started looking at web sites, because that is what is available.
I am not a "lunatic" and people like you have always used the label "crazy" "nuts", etc..to describe those who usually end up being right. Haven't you noticed that it is turning out there was US intelligence or law enforcement involvement in Oklahoma and the 93 world trade bombing? and now a witness is saying that the CIA planted evidence in the Lockerbie crash to indicate the wrong people were involved. This is documented and not crazy "cter" stuff. No one cares anymore, the same thing will happen with 911, in a few years it will come out that there was at least some involvement and no one will care anymore, on to something else.
Either parts of our government were involved or they weren't, there is no in between, for me, so I don't subscribe to your being something other than "oct", but not lihop or mihop.

You come here and call people names, you are never going to get respect in return. There are posters who have a respectful reception here, who don't subscribe to MIHOP, one of my favorite posters in fact who I always read.
"Indeed", you guys all say that. Who says "indeed"?

disagree as well, mainly as trolls, disruptors, or freepers, or less often as stupid and naive. So you criticism is fair but applies to both sides. You've done a fair quantity of insulting and labelling yourself.

There were no visible shockwaves consistent with an explosion at the WTC. Full stop. The shock waves measured by Columbia are seismic, from thousands of tonnes of concrete and steel falling on the ground. A shockwave, yes, not explosive. I repeat - an explosive shockwave would be clearly visible in the dust and smoke cloud around the falling WTC. They are not. Produce a still or a piece of film that shows a shockwave in the smoke rising from the burning building, we'll talk.

From the Landmark thread, I explained my background in this field. I'm not an expert, but I think I know as much as anyone else here. I think there is some evidence pointing to LIHOP, but I think MIHOP is simply out of the question. I think LIHOP's unlikely, for that matter, I think this thing was a grotesque failure of government. I think that's a valid opinion to have, and doesn't make me a freeper. Robust persistence is often the only way to get past that accusation when talking with some MIHOPers. I think the MIHOP case would be strengthened if there was a consistent case - an internally consistent pattern of motive, planning, ends, methods and executions. So far such a case has not emerged.

I notice that you ignored my question. That's OK. I won't accuse you of fleeing.

"Indeed" is hardly unknown in written English or, indeed, spoken English. I don't know why you should alight on that - a little figure of Karl Rove doesn't pop up in the corner of my screen and say "it looks like you're attempting to discredit a 911 sceptic! Why not use the word 'indeed'?"

how a long-term DUer can believe in the incompetence theory. The evidence for LIHOP is pretty much all out there in the open for anyone who's read a few books, court transcripts, intelligence and FOIA material as well as the many MSM sources posted on DU.

For me anyone believes that incompetence is solely to blame either hasn't researched adequately or has a vested interest (whether emotional or otherwise) in defending the status quo.

Many of my acquaintances believe the incompetence theory but they mostly use MSM news sources only, others however who've worked in govt defence depts have pretty much agreed with me that it's LIHOP.

I'm a vegetarian, so the notion that anyone anywhere eats meat is unthinkable.

I simply won't believe it. Not even if it's proven to me.

nt

I use the word "indeed" quite often and I've never once got a Karl Rove popup in the corner of my screen either.

Must be a conspiracy.

Additional watch words: according to some of the tinhatters here, using the word "critical" in conjunction with either "thought" or "thinking" is also verbotten as it immediately identifies the user as a freeper troll (which, by obvious inference amounts to an admission that said tinhatters have no concept of, or ability to engage in, critical thinking skills).

Similarly, saying "tsk tsk" is apparently something that outs you as a freeper librarian to said tinhatters.

You really couldn't make this stuff up.

As a post script, I wasn't here for the initial Landmark thread but it is abundantly apparent that the demolition of the Landmark Tower looks and sounds nothing like the collapses of the twin towers.

And even wrt WTC7, the Landmark Tower implosion video is better evidence AGAINST controlled demolition than it is FOR controlled demolition even though the tinhatters like to tout it as such.

Indeed.

comes only after disruptive behavior has occurred. There are people who are not MIHOP that get along fine with other people here when they contribute information and have respect for others. The shock wave evidence showed of the Landmark does not meet your own criteria of shock wave, so what was your point? "indeed" is just one of many similarities including those little children's game animations that I've noticed. All it probably means is that in all likelihood some of the people here are part of a group from somewhere else, but it is unmistakable.
I don't know what question I ignored. I get tired of you people saying the same things over and over and having to answer it over and over.
Not answering a question and not being able to defend a post you created are two different things.
In an earlier post you said MIHOP is a "religion" for people, but that is exactly what it is for you too,, if you say "there can be no way ". Do you know about Northwoods? that was a REAL plan by real members of our government, had JFK not signed it it would be a reality. Do you know about the creation of so called Al Aqaeda with the CIA in Afghanistan?
You are just as closed off to looking at the possibility of gov. involvement as we are closed off to believing the Bush administration and corporate media and that IS where the information comes from, I'm not "lying".

If you think you know what happened and have evidence to support your own OCT story, tell us what it is. In plain English. Free of "a little of this & a little of that" and without resorting to any of those amazing coincidences that the OCT Brigrade relies on. And, if you're just going to blather on about "incompetence, negligence, intelligence failures" and how OBL is a rich guy who has lots of contacts, then don't expect anyone to take you seriously as an objective, informed researcher. They might take you seriously as something else (shill?), but I don't believe that's how you want to be perceived here. Am I right?

Taxloss: man (or woman) your keyboard. the smoking lamp is now lit.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

promote any particular idea and when someone does they get swarmed with ridicule. Lots of great posters have left, I've looked in the archives, so the tactics work, sadly. One of the mods posted something awhile ago and their lack of knowledge re 911 was excruciating and yet they insinuate that we are "kooks" and the disruptors here just have a "difference of opinion".

a lot have been kicked out.

But for some reason?......the shills never do!

and some of them write really abusive personal attacks. They might get deleted, but then they are back doing it again right away. The good posters who spend a lot of time on thoughtful, interesting posts, drop like flies.

n/t

It's not like they are going to let anyone know........the whys.



http://www.leftgatekeepers.com/

Posters are usually accused of being anti-semitic or linking to sites that are not DU approved. That is all it takes to get banned.

If you are going to discuss 9/11 theories it is wise to avoid mentioning Arabs and related cultures.

Good luck.

Where can one find such a list? It's kinda scary to think they would actually ban someone for innocently linking to an unapproved site.

Regarding mentioning ethnic or religious groups/cultures, don't most people know by now that whether it's a Democratic Party-oriented site or a GOP-oriented site, the quickest way to become an outcast is to say anything less than glowing about one country in particular?

The mods will delete the post and may give you a private warning. If you can't cool it after a warning or try to duke it out on the forums with a mod you will likely be banned, otherwise don't worry about it.