PDA

View Full Version : OK, '9/11Conspiracy' is complete: Who "won"?



JerryL
December 25th, 2007, 09:58 AM
First, Season's greetings, consisting in my best wishes for glad tidings and for good cheer for all who might view this and for all those who they hold dear as well.

This is an invitation to consider the "9/11 conspiracy" thread started by thomasjfletcher, [http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5252] as a body of discussion and as a work that can be reviewed critically.

I do not envision this thread as one that would continue the discussion that has now been declared concluded and I would not anticipate posting more information on the fabric of 9/11 itself. Rather, and as the title of the thread implies, this is a discussion about viewing the 9/11 Conspiracy thread retrospectively to see what its qualities were, its good points, its bad points and so on.

In debates, the concepts of "winning" and of "losing" center on certain precepts about the quality of argumentation and the adjudged persuasiveness of the information presented, in my opinion.

Posts that address the query of "what is a debate and how is a debate 'scored" might be useful for setting a frame of reference for this discussion.

In my view, it would also be useful if posters were to post whether and to what extent their own understanding of 9/11 changed in any way as a result of their participation in the "9/11 Conspiracy" thread.

If you are one who posted in that thread, then you have a unique opportunity to comment fully on the question of whether your own viewpoint was changed in any way as a result of the discussion had.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5252

As for me, I can say that I have learned quite a bit based on the discussion. I have learned, for sure, that my viewpoint is definitely not shared by many people and that what I contend is considered offensive to some.

I have recently come to understand how the proposition that FDR was overtly aware that the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor and that he nonetheless "let it happen" on purpose has been all but proven by historical research. I am not all that inclined to accept that proposition, as I would prefer to think of FDR as a "great" president. Being forced to consider that he may have let Pearl Harbor happen is difficult for me.

If what I have contended about 9/11 can be viewed as provoking a similar dilemma for posters here, then, I can say that I understand, based on my own experience, how difficult it is when confronted with information that requires one to question that which one cherishes.

Maybe the analogy here is inexact, and I accept that it might be; but, it is as close as I can come to understanding the degree of opposition that was expressed in the now concluded 9/11 Conspiracy thread.

Peaceably

Radiohead
December 25th, 2007, 12:48 PM
Didn't Zippy just end this thread?

ablarc
December 25th, 2007, 01:10 PM
As Goebbels remarked, the bigger the offense the easier it is to deny.

That also makes it easier to conceal.





(Folks naturally don't want to believe depravity is real.)

JerryL
December 25th, 2007, 01:18 PM
One reason for shunning recognition of 'deravity' is that doing that (or doing nothing as it were) takes less effort. It is always easier to 'go along with the program' in order to 'get along' in one's society.

In terms of debate, the subject of this thread, radiohead, it is also easier to defend the 'status quo' that is sanctioned by authority than it is to 'question authority' no matter what that 'bumper sticker' says. Questioning authority can be a lonesome endeavor.

How did Bob Dylan put it:

"...you just want to be on the side that's winnin'..."

So do most people, I think.

Radiohead
December 25th, 2007, 02:15 PM
Jerry, you want to retrieve the same smelly can of baseless crackpot conjecture that Zippy just threw in the trash. Whew...it still stinks.

Unless you add some sanity to your 9/11 conspiracy theories, I don't see this thread doing anything but morphing into the same one that was just ended. Just my opinion......I'm not the moderator here.

ZippyTheChimp
December 25th, 2007, 02:25 PM
For insight into the mindset of a conspiracy theorist, just consider the title of this thread:

Who Won?

For those seeking answers to questions, who won is not a consideration. But as I've mentioned several times in the other thread, getting at the truth is not the objective of a conspiracy theorist; it's promoting your own version of the truth, and defending it against any evidence to the contrary. Winning is everything.

In many ways, it's similar to a religion. A spiritual code can be a good framework for living one's life, but it becomes onerous when forced on those that have a different view. Conspiracy theorists proselytize.

It's faith based. Ever try to talk someone out of their religious beliefs? Likewise, you'll never convince a conspiracy theorist that their 'belief' is false.

And like a religion, there's the certainty of winning, of being right and getting some reward in the afterlife that is denied the losers.

JerryL suggests that it would be useful for us to question our own beliefs about 09/11, but nowhere has he stated that the counter-arguments presented have led him to question his own world view. Not one word. Instead we get:

As for me, I can say that I have learned quite a bit based on the discussion. I have learned, for sure, that my viewpoint is definitely not shared by many people and that what I contend is considered offensive to some.The lone crusader, battling the infidels.

ZippyTheChimp
December 25th, 2007, 02:28 PM
There will be NO discussion of any body of evidence of any theory in this thread. Any such posts will be deleted.

JerryL
December 25th, 2007, 03:29 PM
infoshare's post in the old thread that has been 'closed' bears repeating here.

It's content is splendid, in my view:

http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=206224&postcount=430

I would like to say that infoshare's post is what I had in mind; and, to a certain extent that is true. However, I was not previously aware of Kuhn's work, so in that sense what infoshare posted is new to me.

Thanks infoshare.

JerryL
December 25th, 2007, 03:43 PM
I have re-read the title of this thread and the opening post and then zippy's post #6. I'm not sure if I can easily discern how zippy could get from where the title and the first post started to what he stated in post #6, absent an ongoing desire to declare that what I posted in the "9/11 Conspiracy" thread was wrong.

But I thought I had already acknowledged that that is exactly what I had learned from the thread; namely, that most everyone thinks the information I posted is wrong.

Infoshare is on the right track in placing this matter in the context of paradigm shift and in the epistemology of how do we know what we think we know.

Tenacity in the belief that the 'self' is correct and that the 'other' is wrong is also a part of human nature.

But let us look at that: 'self' versus 'other.' The norm is side with oneself or one's own. That is one reason why in determining who 'won' or who 'lost' anything, chances are, absent a clear set of rules, each person involved will tend to have an impression that they got the better of it; whatever "it" is.

If we define 'self' to mean identification with one's country, nationality or place of citizenship, then I would say that one will be hard-pressed to interpret information so as to be required to conclude that one's cherished belief about the basic 'goodness' of that country is wrong or misplaced?

On viewing the nature of the information in the "9/11 Conspiracy" thread, as a body of work or of discussion, how much of what was posted was factual? What factors are used to distinguish what was factual versus what was conjectural?

Alonzo-ny
December 25th, 2007, 03:53 PM
In regards to 9/11 NO ONE won. Lets move on from the dead thread.

ZippyTheChimp
December 25th, 2007, 03:57 PM
I have re-read the title of this thread and the opening post and then zippy's post #6. I'm not sure if I can easily discern how zippy could get from where the title and the first post started to what he stated in post #6, absent an ongoing desire to declare that what I posted in the "9/11 Conspiracy"thread was wrong.Is that what I said?

We're not going to engage in a convoluted debate about who said what, or meant what.

I observed that you asked others to question their belief structure, while not stating if you had done the same.

What is so hard to discern?

If I determine that this thread starts to parallel the other one, it will be closed.

Radiohead
December 25th, 2007, 05:46 PM
If we define 'self' to mean identification with one's country, nationality or place of citizenship, then I would say that one will be hard-pressed to interpret information so as to be required to conclude that one's cherished belief about the basic 'goodness' of that country is wrong or misplaced?



Apparently you haven't read many of the threads and posts on WNY. Generally, knee-jerk "America is always right" flag wavers will always be challenged. Many of the posters here probably consider themselves progressive liberals who never shy away from what they feel is wrong with the current administration or America in general (myself, I'm a moderate independent). So I challenge your contention that those who disagree with your entire DEW/no planes theory are demonstrating misplaced patriotism.

They just know baseless, paranoiac drivel when they see it.


,

lofter1
December 25th, 2007, 07:34 PM
Clear enough ...

http://www.urban42.com/urban42-images/loser.jpg

Or do we need to add a poll?

JerryL
December 26th, 2007, 12:42 AM
...
They just know baseless, paranoiac drivel when they see it.


,

I'm familiar with paranoia and would contest your use of the word as it applies to this thread. Amongst others with whom I am in contact, I am regarded as having "pronoia" meaning it is my assumption that there are those who are working quietly to help bring about the "paradigm shift" that will be needed to overcome the knee-jerk reaction that comes went a point of view that goes against commonly held patterns of thought is presented.

In a prior post, I mentioned the example of FDR letting Pearl Harbor happen. As indicated, new and ongoing historical analysis has brought forward a lot of information in support of that contention and, anecdotally, I would say that the contention about FDR is gaining in acceptability.

Notice, however, that we are very close to 70 years removed from the event in question. If the FDR-LIHOP theory had been seriously put forward to the public in, say, 1947 or even 1951, I think the reaction then would have been similar to that which was enunciated in the 9/11 Conspiracy thread. I cannot prove this, of course, other than to say that the information that now informs the FDR-LIHOP theory was known in 1947 and in 1951, but was then kept either secret or not discussed.

Why do posters suppose that happened?

I'll take it a step further. Looked at as "a debate" a proponent of a position must take into consideration whether the "timing" is right. Some contentions simply cannot be made, successfully, absent the passage of time and a healing process or a process whereby an event, if that is what is involved, becomes less emotionally or otherwise 'charged.'

One step still further. Sometimes, positions have to be taken on something akin to a "loss leader" basis where it will be understood that nothing but disagreement will be encountered initially, but that, over time, the position will gain a modicum of acceptability and a few adherents.

Paradigm shifts don't just happen automatically.

BrooklynRider
December 26th, 2007, 12:57 AM
This thread is over. Zippy brought the other useless discussion in the other thread to a conclusion - period.

If someone disagrees, appeal to Edward.

ZippyTheChimp
December 26th, 2007, 12:58 AM
In a prior post, I mentioned the example of FDR letting Pearl Harbor happen. As indicated, new and ongoing historical analysis has brought forward a lot of information in support of that contention and, anecdotally, I would say that the contention about FDR is gaining in acceptability.Maybe, but I haven't heard and claims that those battleships were dustified.

You still don't seem to understand that the majority here don't believe your idiotic theory because it is, well...idiotic; not because of any preconditioned attitude about the US government. This has been pointed out to you over and over, but you still persist.

This has become spamming, and will never end.

I declare you the winner; now you can be happy and go home.

Thread closed.