You continually use the exact same tactic that Sander Hicks rails against in his article in every one of your posts on this thread, Seger. You make it quite clear, in every single post, that your intention is to discredit the movement by associating it with wacky theories. I am a member of this movement, have been for over three years. I regularly attend meetings of the Northern California 9/11 Truth Alliance, pass out Deception Dollars, postcards, throw the Commission's report in the San Francisco Bay, give DVD's to friends, etc.
This movement is now growing exponentially. I can tell you, unequivocally, that you are totally wrong. Sander Hicks just told you this, too, but you obviously didn't read the article to see the hypocrisy of what you are posting here, in this thread, which is about his article, and it harshly criticizes what you do in each and every post here.
The members of the 9/11 Truth Movement, for the most part, feel the same way about wacky space beam ideas as everyone else does. We think they are wacky. The leaders of this movement are currently taking steps to distance themselves from unscientific speculation. This is exactly why The Schollars for 9/11 Truth group just split in two, but you obviously know very little of the truth about what you are speaking about. Conflating the truth movement with the wacky theories is totally dishonest of you, and very hard to respect.
I give you a few examples of the dishonesty you engage in to illustrate my point.
"...if it weren't for the fact that those wacky theories have become the very meaning of the "truth movement"...Um, that's bullshit. Take it from someone inside the movement.
"The far greater part of the "truth movement" itself would have no use for Hicks' attempts to steer the argument away from their beloved wacky theories."Absolutely wrong. And a perfect example of how you try to portray the movement one way, when the real truth is diametrically opposite what you say. In fact, the far greater part of the “truth movement” finds Hicks’ attempts extremely useful in our current effort to steer the movement away from wacky theories and towards sound, scientific ones.
"Well, if you read the bullshit that you found on the typical "truther" sites…”This one truly reveals your stripes. You are not making any friends among the “truthers” with statements like that! This is another attempt to conflate the whole movement, including the serious, sober sites with the few BS ones. If you try to take the “wacky” stuff and then call it “typical”, I call bullshit on that Orwellian turn of phrase.
The glass is half-full, my friend. There is no need for you to dwell upon the negative here. There are PLENTY of well-researched, serious sites out there with gobs of scientific and other hard evidence, which leave no doubt that the government’s story is not just implausible, but totally impossible. Focusing on the negative will leave you depressed, unhappy and unfulfilled.
"…homeopathic medicine and the people who try to spread the word that homeopathic medicine is no more effective than placebos are both worthy of scorn?"Two sentences after you complain about “conflating”, you come up with this gem. Nice analogy, pal! What are you going to compare the 9/11 Truth movement to next, people who believe in the healing properties of cannabis? Crazies I tell you! The people in all 14 of those states must all be crazy!
"You're simply kidding yourself if you blame the media for creating the impression that wacky theories are the solid mainstream of the "truth movement."Totally wrong again, and just an attempt to use your own echo chamber to justify your bias. You are the one guilty of blame for creating this impression. You and others, and the media, and you are all worthy of my derision, imo. And while it is tempting to write you off as intransigent and intractable, I will still make an effort to educate you as my DU brethren.
"To really see the wackiness of the "truth movement" you have to track the beast to his lair."The negative hits just keep on coming. I have yet to see a single bit of positivism from you on this subject. Nothing. it is hard to justify conversing with someone who has this kind of attitude on any subject, let alone an important one. Now the Truth Movement is a beast, and not just any beast...a beast with a
LAIR. Naw, that doesn’t sound a bit negative to me. You don’t have any agenda here. :sarcasm:
"As with any other kind of nonsense, leaving baseless 9/11 theories unchallenged creates the impression among many people that they must have some validity; otherwise they would be challenged."Balderdash! This reveals your stripes again. You are here railing against baseless theories in a thread about an article which has NOTHING to do with baseless theories. You are a white knight on a shining charger tilting against baseless theories EVEN WHERE THERE ARE NONE! Go man, go!! You can do it!!
The other thing you do which is really lame is take people to task for not going through every post in this forum to read everything you write. God forbid that they not subject themselves to the meme of reading “9/11 Truth Is Wacky” fifty thousand times in EVERY SINGLE POST YOU MAKE. You, sir, are a one-note wonder.
People who consistently engage in this kind of intellectual dishonesty are solely looking to promote an agenda, and, in my opinion, are generally not worthy of debating. I have much better things to do with my time. But I appreciate your input on my thread. Thanks for coming. :hi:
SR
***EYES ONLY***
For serious researchers who are interested in the truth, here is what happened with the Schollars for 9/11 Truth schizm recently. Judy Wood and Jim Fetzer decided to broadcast her "space beams" theory on Fetzer's radio program at the very same time that Steve would be doing his live webcast from Berkeley on Noember 11, 2006. Once Steve got back and he and others in the scholars group saw that Jim Fetzer had done this, and listened to the ridiculousness of that theory (see
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017 where Physicist Greg Jenkins Interviews Judy Wood),
they were so appalled that they finally decided to take action to have the information removed from the website -- naturally they found space beams to be discrediting, and there is no science behind the theories. But Jim Fetzer objected and refused to remove the material, and the disagreement increased from there. Since he was in complete control of the website, the rest of them were essentially locked out.
The owner of the www.st911.org domain also disapproved of Fetzer's behavior and so began to take action to take it away from his sole control. He passed the control of the domain over to Fred Burks after Fetzer threatened legal action against him (Fetzer hired a lawyer who took action). Fred Burks eventually decided to create a neutral page which linked to both new groups and their associated websites. During these events, the scholars membership participated in at 2 votes to make their voices heard. The vast majority of the membership voted to leave Fetzer's group and move to a new group with Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, etc.
I feel it is important for people to understand that this was not just some kind of academic disagreement about a theory that caused the groups to split. Unfortunately the existance of the "neutral page" (st911.org) tends to make it appear this way...but this was actually the outing of a significant dis/misinformation campaign (space beams destroyed the WTC) which would function to discredit the entire movement and especially the scholars group.
http://www.stj911.org/ http://www.911scholars.org/http://www.st911.orgSR