Monday, January 22, 2007

Wait a Minute! I'm Confused!

We keep hearing about how only 16% of the people believe the government's "story" about 9-11. Indeed, the Deniers use this constantly in debating Debunkers, ridiculing us as being part of the 16%.

But then you read about how Deniers try to bring up the subject of 9-11 with their friends and family, and a different story emerges.

If you start telling someone about 9-11, there are three possibilities. Of course, it depends on which version you are talking about. For those of us who have tried to explain that 9-11 is more than the official story, we get to sentence number two, if we are lucky.
- NO WAY!! Are you totally out of your mind?!”
- But why do you think that…
- No! I don’t want to hear about it. It`s sick.
- Have you seen 9-11…
- Yes. I have seen it, read about it and I know what happened.
- …Press For Truth, I ment
- What is that?
- It’s a film about 9-11 and…
- Yeah, right! Conspiracy sh*t.

And that’s usually the end of discussion. The next possibility is a softer experience, but maybe more demoralizing.
- Oh, really? You think so? (looks confused and raising an eyebrow)
- Well, listen……………………….


We've talked about this in the past; many of the Deniers express despair when talking about their attempts to discuss 9-11 Denial with friends and family. Here's a classic example from the old Looser Forum.

I've tried and I've tried to approach this subject (again -- 9/11, and what really happened) from what I consider to be a series of intelligent segways (sic), cautious as to when the time seems otherwise appropriate to make it the subject of conversation, watching body language and facial expressions of the listeners when striving to express the mass of obvious contradictions in what we have been led to believe by our government. Nothing seems to work folks, not really.

12 Comments:

At 22 January, 2007 12:23, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Well I think they would get the same reaction if they used "The Hollocaust never happened" as a topic. Both lack that essential component to gain favor with the average person...a grain of truth.

TAM

 
At 22 January, 2007 12:36, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Funny but whenever I engage a truther I find they are for the most part cowards, when faced with someone who knows the disinformation and giant flaws in logic these people try to sell as fact.

They want someone who in gullible, someone they can play the "well if you don't believe in 911 truth you are not with it"

I think as debunkers of this crap we do need to insert ourselves into discussions to let the fence sitters know not everyone is buying the truther bull.

I have personally gotten a friend who was buying the truthers lies to not pay any attention to them any longer and all it took was some facts and logic.

 
At 22 January, 2007 13:05, Blogger Pat said...

Yes, 911T, I think they rely on people who don't know 9-11 backwards and forwards.

 
At 22 January, 2007 13:59, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The intellectually honest approach, or any 9/11 government story supporter, is exactly the opposite of the approach which is being taken by this blog. Namely, that approach would be to discuss and challenge the strongest evidence and spokespeople in the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Pat and James have taken this approach in a minority of postings.

 
At 22 January, 2007 15:14, Blogger Alex said...

Namely, that approach would be to discuss and challenge the strongest evidence and spokespeople in the 9/11 Truth Movement.

And that would be what, exactly? Death-Beam Girl, Thermate Guy, Or The Water Boy?

If you had ANY strong evidence, you'd get a discussion. Since you don't, you get ridicule - which is all you deserve.

 
At 22 January, 2007 15:15, Blogger Richard said...

The intellectually honest approach, or any 9/11 government story supporter, is exactly the opposite of the approach which is being taken by this blog. Namely, that approach would be to discuss and challenge the strongest evidence and spokespeople in the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Pat and James have taken this approach in a minority of postings.


Do you actually read what you type? Let me tell you a little bit about intellectual honesty. People who are intellectually honest don't:

Lie
Quote mine
Leaving out information
Make undocumented assumptions
and use logical fallacies

The truthers are guilty a billion times over for their intellectual DIShonestly. The only thing we are guilty of are the occasional ad hominems. However those come after our points and we don't use them as evidence. Think of it as icing on the cake.

Secondly, truthers are about as far from being scientific as you can get. Their theories are not falsifiable and their use of "evidence" is appalling.

 
At 22 January, 2007 15:24, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Star Wars is REEEEEEL! Therefore beam weapons are REEEEEEL!

 
At 22 January, 2007 15:47, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...


The intellectually honest approach, or any 9/11 government story supporter, is exactly the opposite of the approach which is being taken by this blog. Namely, that approach would be to discuss and challenge the strongest evidence and spokespeople in the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Pat and James have taken this approach in a minority of postings.


you know I can put up with a great deal, but you really take the cake when it comes to whining. Were you the kid that got on everyones herves as a child cause all he did was whine and complain.

If you do not like the posts or the blog, why not either (a) leave, or (b) create your own.

TAM

 
At 22 January, 2007 16:37, Blogger HidariMak said...

I thought that the fantasy of 84% support was disproven during the last round of US midterm elections. How many people speaking for that "84%" got elected again?

 
At 23 January, 2007 11:15, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

We keep hearing about how only 16% of the people believe the government's "story" about 9-11. Indeed, the Deniers use this constantly in debating Debunkers, ridiculing us as being part of the 16%.

Is there a debunk site for the 16% number?

 
At 23 January, 2007 14:27, Blogger Alex said...

Yeah, it's at screw16%.com

 
At 23 January, 2007 16:08, Anonymous Anonymous said...

@Swing Dangler: One of the very links Jones put into his "victorious announcement" contains a PDF that debunks his asinine claim.

Americans Question Bush on 9/11 Intelligence (PDF)

From the PDF:

81. When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States, do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?
Telling truth Hiding something Mostly lying DK/NA

Telling the truth: 16%
Mostly telling the truth, but hiding something: 53%
Mostly lying: 28%
Don't know: 3%


Jones added up the bottom three and claimed 84% of Americans reject the official account of 9/11.

This is a bald-faced lie, for a numerous reasons:

1) This isn't even about the official account of 9/11. It's about what the government knew before 9/11.
2) He counts the people who voted "mostly telling the truth" in his favor.
3) He counts the people who voted "don't know" in his favor.
4) The question was asked over the phone to only 983 people.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home