My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

July 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    

« Kennedy Assassinated: 42 Years Ago Today | Main | Has Hitchens Defected With One Foot? »

Friday, November 25, 2005

Comments

Elspeth Drache

These are most likely
paid Government Shills.
Paid to discredit, and attack and disinform.

They come out of the woodwork whenever anyone
challenges the "Official WhiteHouse View".

See more on 9-11,
FEMA, The Lost Terror
Drills HERE:

THE TOWER:PART5
http://hometown.aol.com/oldhipchic1959/page3.html

THE HIGH CABAL'S AGENDA'S
http://hometown.aol.com/abfabchic1959/index.html

Ron Leighton

Hello Elspeth,

I agree that many of the cyber-chucklers are likely paid shills, government and private. However, too many of them are probably just ordinary people.

I will check out the links you offered when I get a chance.

Take care,

Uncle $cam

Veblen’s concept of "trained incapacity", "technological psychosis." and "planned incongruity" is at work here, as Thorstein Veblen point's out, authority figures train their members or practitioners to see certain aspects of a problem, but in so doing those practitioners become trained to not see other aspects of a problem. Herein lies the problem.

Paul

Stigma is a very powerful normative force. Most people do not want to think of themselves, or be thought of, as weirdos.
People do not like to be labelled, they generally see themselves as independent thinkers but recoil from anything that might mark them out as offbeat.
Well they might in the current climate.
The 'conspiracy theorist' tag has become an almost as broad a brush as 'anti semitic' and as devalued. However mud does stick and it's easier to avoid this by maintaining a 'cool' distance from 'wild' theories. This, combined with a general unwillingness to accept that a government might do ill to its own citizens means that there will be a way to go before the above opinions change.
The formulation is:
Conspiracy theories are for idiots, I am not an idiot therefore I will not countenance them.

Kevin Laurier

Hello,

Very interesting articles. I think that given the litany of circumstantial evidence, it is quite clear that one way or another, the Bush regime was behind 9/11. I find interesting that when you type '9/11 conspiracy theories' in google, you either find articles engaging in personal attacks, or articles criticising or parodying those who dismiss alternative 9/11 theories, but few articles that try to give a serious response.

Recently, though, a 9/11 nay-sayer (and Bush apologist) sent me a thread from Bad Astronomy, I'd like your opinion on their feedback.

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=34793

Ken Daves

I find Jones's work, as well as this website, informative and further proof of what I saw on 9/11.

There are a number of people around the country who know enough about basic construction principles and building design to know that the way those buildings fell was indicative of planned implosions.

Building 7 is uniquely useful to this cause because it's disintegration is ideally textbook and there seems to be an official denial of coverage of that building's demise.

Anyone who questions what is readily understandable and true is a tool, witting or not, of the PNAC bitches who are destroying this country. We have a lot of bitter people in this country, and in that environment, and for this bush administration's causes, tools are easy to come by.

Brian

They could have been shills for sure. They are all over the net. But most likely they are typical people who live in fear and are lazy. Too scared to listen to the truth and too lazy to verify it. It becomes much easer to deny and besides, right now there are more people in denial than those who are awake. That will change over time, but right now you will have to put up with all kinds of stupid comments. Just ignore them and focus no the non snoring.

Alamaine

Remember that every criminal investigation is a "conspiracy theory," initiated and continued on the assumption that some one (or two or more) persons had some nefarious involvement with the situation at hand. Sometimes the simple assumption and conclusion that a death, robbery, or other crime was merely an "act of G^D." There always has to be some devilry involved and therefore the search begins and strives for a satisfactory conclusion, identifying almost mythic bogeymen along the way.

One of the more persistent "conspiracy theories" is the case of Jack the Ripper, the one that investigators and sleuths have been puzzling over for the better part of a century. Interested parties have derived their own standards by which they judge the evidence and have arrived at their decisions independently of the government's efforts in solving the case. But, instead of being "conspiracy theorists," not necessarly those assuming the entire responsibility rests on the gov't's shoulders, they have engaged in their pursuits of the truth, able to converse and share information and insights among themselves with varying degrees of cooperation. The success of this enterprise has been determined by the lack of political ramifications at this later date. If it was the noble in the carriage with the razor, who cares now? Or a sailor on period visits to Londontown? Or ... or ... or? For something that happened so long ago to some relatively insignificant prostitutes, any conclusive result will not have very much of an effect on anyone living today, except the sleuths' senses of satisfaction.

Today, their counterparts, the "conspiracy theorists," have run up against many people who -- despite their own forms of "prostitution" -- may be adversely affected by any truths or revelations about their participation in various activities seen as unethical or criminal, infectious to society overall, as a whole. Hence, the term "sleuth" cannot be applied to them ... yet.

Obviously, the powers that be are more than willing to relegate the inquisitive to some penumbral fringe region, hoping people will be sufficiently engrossed in the likes of "The Maltese Falcon" or "The Big Sleep" or even "Columbo" or "Murder She Wrote" on which the amateur sleuthing is all concentrated on the movies or on the television or in pulp fiction, leaving the professionals to some fictional realm in which the crooks always get caught and perhaps even shot (putting an end to those sources of evidence). There is -- of course -- no translation from the mass media to real life because, in reality, nothing intricately plotted or conceived in secret meetings and chambres ever happens, given the honesty and directness of those who occupy the responsible and visible positions as representatives of the interests of the public and society as a whole!

Alamaine

Remember that every criminal investigation is a "conspiracy theory," initiated and continued on the assumption that some one (or two or more) persons had some nefarious involvement with the situation at hand. Sometimes the simple assumption and conclusion that a death, robbery, or other crime was merely an "act of G^D." There always has to be some devilry involved and therefore the search begins and strives for a satisfactory conclusion, identifying almost mythic bogeymen along the way.

One of the more persistent "conspiracy theories" is the case of Jack the Ripper, the one that investigators and sleuths have been puzzling over for the better part of a century. Interested parties have derived their own standards by which they judge the evidence and have arrived at their decisions independently of the government's efforts in solving the case. But, instead of being "conspiracy theorists," not necessarly those assuming the entire responsibility rests on the gov't's shoulders, they have engaged in their pursuits of the truth, able to converse and share information and insights among themselves with varying degrees of cooperation. The success of this enterprise has been determined by the lack of political ramifications at this later date. If it was the noble in the carriage with the razor, who cares now? Or a sailor on period visits to Londontown? Or ... or ... or? For something that happened so long ago to some relatively insignificant prostitutes, any conclusive result will not have very much of an effect on anyone living today, except the sleuths' senses of satisfaction.

Today, their counterparts, the "conspiracy theorists," have run up against many people who -- despite their own forms of "prostitution" -- may be adversely affected by any truths or revelations about their participation in various activities seen as unethical or criminal, infectious to society overall, as a whole. Hence, the term "sleuth" cannot be applied to them ... yet.

Obviously, the powers that be are more than willing to relegate the inquisitive to some penumbral fringe region, hoping people will be sufficiently engrossed in the likes of "The Maltese Falcon" or "The Big Sleep" or even "Columbo" or "Murder She Wrote" on which the amateur sleuthing is all concentrated on the movies or on the television or in pulp fiction, leaving the professionals to some fictional realm in which the crooks always get caught and perhaps even shot (putting an end to those sources of evidence). There is -- of course -- no translation from the mass media to real life because, in reality, nothing intricately plotted or conceived in secret meetings and chambres ever happens, given the honesty and directness of those who occupy the responsible and visible positions as representatives of the interests of the public and society as a whole!

AWTD

THE GREAT DOLPHIN CONSPIRACY

Anchovies swim the warmer waters in schools. When two or more dolphins see this, they encircle the pack and begin rapidly swirling in circles. This creates an eddy from which the helpless anchovies have no escape. The dolphins then take turns picking off mouthfuls of the yummy pizza toppings.

The dolphins motto: By way of deception, thou shalt fish in fish.

If it occurs in nature, it occurs with us.

nolocontendere

I just took a look at that bad astronomy forum. It doesn't surprise me that the responses are so dogmatic towards alternative views to the official 9/11 story. You can almost hear them sniffing and harrumphing and tut tutting.
At least they're civil, although dull witted and slavishly obedient.

Kevin Laurier

It's not uncommon to see scientists who get suckered into groupthink. I mean, look at the quacks in the pharmaceutical industry who peddle their snake oil treatments and are more interested in keeping their jobs and making money than in real science.

I used to be a student in science. I'm starting to realise how you have to be part of the corporate establishment to get enough funding to practise science. It's no wonder, therefore that most of the science will be skewed in favour of the corporate establishment.

N. MFEMFEM

I used to be pretty skeptical of "conspiracy theories." However, in the past couple of years most of what I have read in alternative/independant press sources has been later vindicated in the main stream press, albeit with a muffled sense of importance. The general public seems to accept that, in a historical sense, governments do lie, manipulate the truth, and fabricate events to justify policy. I don't understand why this grasp of the nature of power ends with contemporary western culture. WE wouldn't do that because we are AMERICANS! In a free country, even the corrupt and corruptable are free.

todd

http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/index.php
This is a site where I have been reduced to arguing against someone who continuously states that "there is no evidence uranium is bad for people" and that "George Bush has never told a lie ever in his whole political career".

Kevin Laurier

Interestingly enough, that whole 'conspiracy denial' culture seems to be more prevalent in the United States than elsewhere. For example, there's no such term as 'conspiracy theorist' in French, unless you count really awkward translations like 'partisan de la theorie du complot' or 'conspirationniste'.

In any case, where I live there isn't that sort of stigma attached to conspiracy theories (unless you're into old guff like Hoagland). Even in class, my French teacher openly disccussed a CBC show that talked about Bush's connexions with the Saudis.

reprehensor

Absolutely interesting blogging. I'm impressed by the overall quality of responses to your 'Occam's Razor' thread, here at home base.

For the record, I don't subscribe to any specific theory about what happened on 9/11, especially the 'Official Theory'.

It is interesting that a few of the responses to the posting at the Randi Rhodes thread were exactly what your blog entry talked about: dismissive ad hominem remarks wrapped within an air of 'everday commensense' or implied (supposed?) superior intellectual clarity. (I'm glad that at least one poster wanted to check out Jones' original article.)

Your readers may or may not be aware that the 9/11 Commission Final Report seems to be a whitewash. A contemporary Warren Commission report designed to squelch some facts, (like the existence of Able Danger), omit others (like the testimony of Sibel Edmonds), and obfuscate still others (google "Saeed Sheikh").

I've got several transcripts posted on my blog from Rep. Cynthia McKinney's July 22nd Congressional Briefing: "The 9/11 Commission Report One Year Later: A Citizens’ Response – Did They Get It Right?" that some of your readers may be interested in reading, at present it's about the only place you can read it online for now.

http://reprehensor.gnn.tv/

(additional links at bottom of blog entry)

Good blogging!

Peter

Isn't it something when we
learn that 90% of the people
believe in Santa Claus...that's the starting
point.

If people were REALLY interested in learning what
really goes on in the world
it might compel us to ACT.
A frightening prospect for most of us. Think JFK, the
fraudulent elections of '00
& '04, Iran Contra, 911,
etc..

My father enjoyed repeating
the refrain: "Sire! Sire!
The people are revolting."
With the King dropping his
head "I KNOW".

People believe a lot of very stupid things that they are unable or unwilling to look at.

Enjoy your commentary very
much.

Bill

It should be obvious to anyone even paying half attention that the official story doesn't add up. Not only does it not add up, it is at odds with many many facts. Furthermore, the "New Pearl Harbor" which the Project for the New American Century wished for in 2000, is a little bit too concidental, just on it's own.

Davol

My gut has told me that my eyes were watching a controlled demolition since I saw the television footage on 9/11. The problem with this truth coming out with the "official story" around, is the ignorance the official story benefits from. As just one of volumnes of examples I cite the collaps of WTC Building 7 after 5:00pm on 9/11/2005, which also collapsed into its own footprint like the two larger better known demolitions. Most Americans don't even know this building went down thanks to our uninformative media and that "official story" eclipes we all live under. The truth will come out. Already the number of in-the-dark Americans are being informed that a 3rd tower also fell that day with no help from bomb-flying hijackers, and as that occures the official story stands to be laughed out of its place in posterity. Its happening, but lets face it, we are being denied the truth because of government lies and a corporate owned media complicit in promoting thoes lies.

Sam

Just found your blog for the first time. Wonderful writing, and I love your motto about our brains are already washed and its time to get them dirty again!

The people like Realist whom you are quoting . . .

I don't think they're poor ingnorant mind-controlled schlubbs (mostly). I think they're doing what they're doing DELIBERATELY. I think they are what people are calling shills.

It would be interesting to investigate. Meet some actual (right-wing? fundamentalist? zionist? NWO?) shills and interview them, find out how many there are, how they get hired (finally I could get a job!!!), how they get their assignments, who they report to, how much they get paid, and of course who pulls the strings.

I started thinking this way a couple years ago when I was participating as a post-er on a blog, and there was this one character who was such a virtuoso at keeping people's knickers in a twist. I mean, really GOOD at sensing buttons and pushing them, and really convincing at playing dumb, like they really just didn't get what people were saying, AND at the same time, being totally cunning about MESSING UP any kind of consensus or clarity that might appear in the ongoing conversation.

I started looking at it with the hypothesis that it could be a paid propaganda person (an idea that I got from WhatReallyHappened), and the situation started making more sense to me.

So I wrote a post, addressed to that person, asking if s/he was an "agent provocateur." I'd like to report that when I threw that bucket of water the person just melted, like the witch in Wizard of Oz. However, there was no immediate effect ON THAT PERSON, but I will say there was a shift in the conversation. I believe that people started to see that the situation on that blog actually had the possibility of a feature, or a dimension, they had been unaware of (deliberate disinformation).

Thank you, and good wishes!

S

RandomGirl

I agree Davo. I have also seen instances on blogs where certain characters use antagonistic phrases such as conspiracy nut, kook, etc, in their argument against investigating government conspiracy theories. These people usually exhibit good grammar and sentence structure in their arguments, but that is all. They never address the issues that are raised by conspiracy theorists, even when the issues have been published in mainstream articles. Yes, they do appear to be very good at producing inflammatory statements and pseudo counter-arguments. I believe the reason their rebuttals are so effective is because the vast majority of people fall into the trap of getting brought down to their level. Many people don't recognize their MO and mistake them for people who simply haven't investigated the facts. Therefore they become infatuated with trying to wake them up. The more the spooks deny all possibility of government involvement in mass crimes against humanity, the more insane the person trying to wake them up appears to the rest of the readers.
This would seem to be a blowback to the days of COINTELPRO, applied to a modern medium. If you look carefully, you can also find this kind of rhetoric in newspapers, especially in the reader's feedback sections.

Good work on the blog. Cya.

Alias Smith and Jones

Take a look at these two threads. Get to know shills like "Paranoid Pete" and an ass called "Architect". I'm the guy under a variety of guises giving them a pounding.

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/11/327869.html

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/11/327894.html

Dave

Good for a laugh. And some serious stuff:


http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/10/326074.html?c=on#c136003

SourDove

Reasoned argument is an art. Committed skeptics are forced to entertain ideas they would otherwise dismiss. That's why, when I first read about the 9/11 conspiracy during the Yousef trial, it was obvious the conspirators were counting on NORAD to an unreasonable degree, a degree that would surely expose helpers within.

It was the very looniness of their plan to fly airliners into the WTC and Pentagon that struck me first. If guessing the date correctly in 1999 made me a conspiracy theorist then, I can blame it on the original conspirators who thought they could count on strategic air defense paralysis at just the right moment, even after the plan was exposed in the New York Times. No matter who they were, it was a bizarre theory on their part.

Mike Zimmer

I would be more concerned with working on some of the better anti-war, anti-neocon columnists, and trying to make them see that you don't have to be soft in the head to believe that the conspiracy was far different than the normally promulgated version. People such as Ernest Partridge and Bernard Weiner on the left, and Justin Raimondo on the libertarian right come to mind.

Regards,
Mike Zimmer

The comments to this entry are closed.