OK, I am new here. But don't believe any of the 911 conspiracy stuff.....

[KansasVoter]

but maybe I am wrong. I doubt it. Hard to believe that no one is willing to talk about it now or make money off a book about it.

If you "believers" had to recommend a paper or article that proved your case, what would it be? I would like to read it and see what the "best evidence" contains.

[SDuderstadt]

1. This should be fun...

be prepared to possibly be called a "Bushco member" or a "paid poster". It's quite a hoot.

[KansasVoter]

2. Are you serious? So is this only a "believer" forum or are skeptics allowed here also?

[OnTheOtherHand]

3. anyone can post here

Nothing is ever resolved, but sometimes it's interesting. Or sometimes it has been interesting.

[SDuderstadt]

4. Well...

according to many conspiracy theorists, our motivation has to be evil.

It's actually comical.

[jberryhill]

6. You are going to have to define your terms - "believer" and "skeptic"

[davidkc]

13. well, we have a govt. official saying that CT blogs should be "cognitively infiltrated"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Sunstein#Conspiracy_theories_and_government_infiltration

"Sunstein co-authored a 2008 paper with Adrian Vermeule, titled Conspiracy Theories, in which they wrote, "The existence of both domestic and foreign conspiracy theories, we suggest, is no trivial matter, posing real risks to the government’s antiterrorism policies, whatever the latter may be." They go on to propose that, "the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups",<22> where they suggest, among other tactics, "Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Sunstein#Conspiracy_theories_and_government_infiltration

I'd be surprised if there aren't cognitive infiltrators here already.
I think paid Cognitive infiltrators would be easy to spot because, as paid persons, they would spend tremendous amount of time and effort in the blog in question, replying to almost everything that is written there...in the morning, afternoon and night hours...consistent with a person who has no other job.

[zappaman]

14. well

it's a job.
and it pays very well

[SDuderstadt]

15. I'm just an intern...n/t

[OnTheOtherHand]

16. that would be pretty inept, no?

Paid cognitive infiltrators should be smart enough to figure out that they'll be more effective if they don't appear to spend all their time online.

Conveniently, the corollary is that pretty much any posting pattern is consistent with the hypothesis that someone is a paid cognitive infiltrator. Unfalsifiable hypotheses are like magic carpets that can take us anywhere we want to go.

[snooper2]

19. It's called double secret reverse psychology

You see, I am telling you I'm paid by Bushco cronies. See, you are going to think, no way. They would be more undercover about it. But we tell you sometimes, and sometimes we don't. So now you think maybe I am a paid off disrupter. Or am I?

I am...or?

[davidkc]

20. What do you mean "any posting pattern" would hint to a person being paid?

Is posting only 2 or 3 messages a day an indication of being paid?

[OnTheOtherHand]

21. you tell me

But first tell me why you misquoted me.

[davidkc]

23. First tell me why you imply that pretty much everyone posts a tremendous amount of time

You spoke about "pretty much any posting patterns" fitting the description I gave. But you and I know that posting two or three comments during say, the night alone, or even morning, afternoon and night, is not a pattern similar to one where the author spends a "tremendous" amount of time replying.

The "corollary" you assigned to me bogus.

[OnTheOtherHand]

24. I'm going to try to be polite here

I don't "imply that pretty much everyone posts a tremendous amount of time." I daresay that isn't a remotely plausible reading of post 16. Nor did I state or imply that almost any posting pattern would "fit() the description (you) gave." If all posting patterns fit that description, there wouldn't be much point in using the plural.

Nor did I assign a corollary to you. I don't know whether that turn of phrase reflects careless writing on your part, careless reading, or -- oh, here we go -- how about a malevolent intent to undermine the 9/11 truth movement by associating it with remarkably silly posts? (No, I don't think that.)

As I said, pretty much any posting pattern is consistent with the hypothesis that someone is a paid cognitive infiltrator. If that assertion seems bizarre to you, maybe you haven't spent much time here. But if you actually think it means that all posting patterns are indistinguishable, then... sputter.

[davidkc]

25. I wouldn't care if you were impolite

And yes, you were referring to me regarding the corollary. You replied to my comment.

[OnTheOtherHand]

26. maybe someone else could explain it to you

You seem to be ignoring most of what I post at any rate, so I guess that's that.

So, was there someone you wanted to accuse of being paid to post here, or was your pot-stirring merely hypothetical?

[davidkc]

30. That was a rhetorical question, wasn't it? Because you didn't see me accusing nobody specifically

Whoever seems to always have time to push the official story should feel targeted. I don't know.

[SDuderstadt]

31. Are you assuming that people have no legitimate reason to...

"push the official story" (whatever that is) because it makes more sense than goofy consporacy theory bullshit?

Why question people's motivation rather than focus on the facts?

[OnTheOtherHand]

32. my his own representation

he isn't assuming anything, just... let's say, thinking out loud. Although... well, I'm trying to respect DU rules here.

[davidkc]

35. Why do you pretend not to be sure what the official story is?

It's very simple to know what the official story (the government's version of the events) is in each major event being discussed (9-11, jfk, etc.)

[SDuderstadt]

36. Really?

I have a better idea of what the consensus "story" is, but you didn't answer my question. Do you believe that no one has a legitimate reason for "accepting" the consensus view?

[davidkc]

37. I thought you were interested in my views regarding the official story

Since that was the only story I referred to. Why are you asking me about a term ("concensus story") that I expressed no opinion about? (I don't know what the "concensus story" is, by the way).

[SDuderstadt]

38. I'm tired of...

dancing with you, pal.

[Old Troop]

39. Is it "imply" or "infer"?

[OnTheOtherHand]

40. neither :)

That is, I think the other poster meant "imply" rather than "infer," but I didn't either imply or infer what the poster said I did. Just in case I needed to say that again!

Actually, I don't see anyone who appears to be spending a tremendous amount of time posting here, so maybe that's all that really needs to be said. The highest average I see is somewhere around 6 posts per day -- and a lot of posts here could be whipped off in a few seconds.

[defendandprotect]

27. They'd also have people watching website threads for them...and alerting them...

to hasten back to reply to subjects they're working on -- i.e., 9/11 --

Ooops . . . didn't someone here acknowledge that recently?

[SDuderstadt]

29. Just when I think D&P can't possibly claim anything dumber....n/t

[whatchamacallit]

5. Welcome to the vomit bucket :) (nt)

[deconstruct911]

7. Couple things

anyone with advance knowledge of 9/11 obviously benefited financially or used it to their benefit some way.

If you really haven't seen ANYTHING that could possibly raise a doubt about 9/11 that HASN'T been independently investigated or explained in further detail by any federal agency I suggest you watch these clips:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6h2CyldX6c&playnext=1&videos=Ww65FyqeanI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nh3_wWmS6lk

Emad Salem recording: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e88_1192741655

CBS report: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F1Y6cGRXEs

[SDuderstadt]

8. "anyone with advance knowledge of 9/11 obviously benefited financially"

But, it's not true that everyone who benefited from 9/11 financially had advance knowledge. I don't remember the name of that logical fallacy.

[deconstruct911]

9. read the rest

Don't be so selective.

[SDuderstadt]

10. Dude...

I have already seen these before. Maybe you should stop being selective in actually fact-checking them.

[deconstruct911]

11. haha

links dude. Pay attention.

[SDuderstadt]

12. I DID, dude...

what the fuck is your point?

[defendandprotect]

34. Hi -- haven't watched them all yet ... interesting ... + right to include '93 bombing questions....

Too little attention paid to all the questions there --

looks like a practice run --

but PNAC nonetheless tried to use it to get Clinton to invade Iraq!

[deconstruct911]

41. Agreed

The Salem recording video really lays out some charts and important facts. Both the 93 bombing and insider trading reveal beyond any reasonable doubt that the intelligence community (globally)is heavily involved with these events.

[pauldp]

17. OK . Do you believe the Iraq conspiracy stuff?

nt

[snooper2]

18. How far the rabbit whole you want to go?

You have to step back and consider a few basic facts...

A- Did Planes Really Hit those Buildings?

B- Did a plane crash in Shanksville?

C- Are the hijackers really dead?


based on those answers I'm sure there are a a couple people here who could point you in the right direction :)

[davidkc]

22. Read books

I would read books from both sides of the argument and make my own conclusions.

[defendandprotect]

28. Presumably, you do believe, however . . .

that aluminum planes cut thru steel buildings like knives thru butter?

[tt_chatter]

33. ...

interesting

[wildbilln864]

42. everybody believes....

some conspiracy theory about 9/11. Whether that theory agrees with the government's CT or not.