www.911myths.com

[NoGreaterLove]

The funny thing is that the ones who ridicule and point fingers at those who do not buy into the 911 theory are just as guilty of bias, prejudice and hate as they claim the government is.
They are part of the problem, not the solution. Their vehement hatred consumes them to the point that they are willing to mock, ridicule and slander anyone that does not fit into their regime.
I respect those who treat the subject with rational conversation and I am not speaking of those. I am speaking of the ones who become angry and spiteful if you disagree with them.

[Mark]

The funny thing is that the ones who ridicule and point fingers at those who do not buy into the 911 theory are just as guilty of bias, prejudice and hate as they claim the government is.
They are part of the problem, not the solution. Their vehement hatred consumes them to the point that they are willing to mock, ridicule and slander anyone that does not fit into their regime.
I respect those who treat the subject with rational conversation and I am not speaking of those. I am speaking of the ones who become angry and spiteful if you disagree with them.

Did you notice that too? Maybe master mahan and his disciples are playing both sides for fools..

[p51-mustang]

You could also start a "federal govt is our friend and just wants to help us" club with Barney the dinosaur as the club president. Then you could sit around and sing "I love you, you love me"....

Okay I see how this all works p51. If anyone dares question with boldness anything about the accepted conspiracy conclusions arrived at here on 9-11 then they are just a bunch of la la land fools who don't live in reality and think all is well in govt. Now I can see how the 9-11 conspiracy theorists or OKC conspiracy theorists felt when they were shouted down by those beauracrats who didn't want anyone to question anything about official govt conclusions.

See Bro it happens from both camps. The philosophy that "either you are with us or you are against us" comes from both sides of the debate. If I dare question anything about Dr. Jones thermite/false flag etc etc conclusions on 9-11 then I am labeled a Book of Mormon non-believing govt stooge. If on the other hand I turn around and question anything found on the official govt 9-11 report I am labeled a wacky dangerous conspiracy theorist. I must go all in with one side or the other or I am going to be attacked by one side or the other. No other potential possibility exists. Its either the official story or the 9-11 false flag conspiracy story. No other options are given for me to choose. Isn't that type of argument part of some kind of mind control hegelian dialectic like oriented philosophy?

Mark, I'm just yaking your chain a little. I know your a good Bro. and see the bigger picture. Cant I fun with you once in awhile? Sheesh...

[p51-mustang]

The funny thing is that the ones who ridicule and point fingers at those who do not buy into the 911 theory are just as guilty of bias, prejudice and hate as they claim the government is.
They are part of the problem, not the solution. Their vehement hatred consumes them to the point that they are willing to mock, ridicule and slander anyone that does not fit into their regime.
I respect those who treat the subject with rational conversation and I am not speaking of those. I am speaking of the ones who become angry and spiteful if you disagree with them.

there are a lot more hate, your a kook mongers on the "I believe the govt fairy tale story" side of this than on the "truther" side. IMHO

[Mark]

You could also start a "federal govt is our friend and just wants to help us" club with Barney the dinosaur as the club president. Then you could sit around and sing "I love you, you love me"....

Okay I see how this all works p51. If anyone dares question with boldness anything about the accepted conspiracy conclusions arrived at here on 9-11 then they are just a bunch of la la land fools who don't live in reality and think all is well in govt. Now I can see how the 9-11 conspiracy theorists or OKC conspiracy theorists felt when they were shouted down by those beauracrats who didn't want anyone to question anything about official govt conclusions.

See Bro it happens from both camps. The philosophy that "either you are with us or you are against us" comes from both sides of the debate. If I dare question anything about Dr. Jones thermite/false flag etc etc conclusions on 9-11 then I am labeled a Book of Mormon non-believing govt stooge. If on the other hand I turn around and question anything found on the official govt 9-11 report I am labeled a wacky dangerous conspiracy theorist. I must go all in with one side or the other or I am going to be attacked by one side or the other. No other potential possibility exists. Its either the official story or the 9-11 false flag conspiracy story. No other options are given for me to choose. Isn't that type of argument part of some kind of mind control hegelian dialectic like oriented philosophy?

Mark, I'm just yaking your chain a little. I know your a good Bro. and see the bigger picture. Cant I fun with you once in awhile? Sheesh...

I am sorry if I am coming across as negative here Bro as that is not my intent but I did want to make a bigger point in my post. Can you see any validity to what I am saying in regards to potential deceptive traps for all of us to be aware of? I know we are on the same team here but that does not mean we can't be taken in by expert deceivers who will play on any gullibility they can find.

[NoGreaterLove]

there are a lot more hate, your a kook mongers on the "I believe the govt fairy tale story" side of this than on the "truther" side. IMHO

I have not experienced that from the "govt fairy tale story" side of things on this forum, near as much as I have from the truthers. When I see that type of rhetoric, the hate type, I just tune out to what they may be trying to teach me. When I read something that either side has to say about the issue and they do it in a civil way, I spend time thinking about it.

I guess the point is, when someone really wants to educate,they get a lot further using civility than using hate.

[larsenb]

The funny thing is that the ones who ridicule and point fingers at those who do not buy into the 911 theory are just as guilty of bias, prejudice and hate as they claim the government is.
They are part of the problem, not the solution. Their vehement hatred consumes them to the point that they are willing to mock, ridicule and slander anyone that does not fit into their regime.
I respect those who treat the subject with rational conversation and I am not speaking of those. I am speaking of the ones who become angry and spiteful if you disagree with them.

there are a lot more hate, your a kook mongers on the "I believe the govt fairy tale story" side of this than on the "truther" side. IMHO

Complete agreement here.

From my experience of reading and listening to many, many commentators, bloggers, 'editorialists', anchors and TV Hosts who believe the official position, their common method is to use a plethora of name calling and red-herring and/or ad hominem arguments. They virtually spit out the term: 'conspiracy theorist', as well as other labels and names, loaded with disdain and venom. Michael Reagan even called for someone to murder a particular LA-area We Are Change member who was trying to espouse 9/11 truth ideas. Or the instance of GB labeling truthers as potential terrorists. Or the recent National Geographic hit piece loaded with attempts to psychologically profle those attracted to the 9/11 truth 'aberation'.

If you devised an indexing method weighting the use of this type of rhetoric, lumped under the rubric of measuring bad argumentation techniques, anti-9/11 truthers would not fair very well. I was going to design something to do this, but never got around to it.

Why is this so? Because they rarely address the actual arguments and evidence put forth by the 'truthers'.

[rcronk]

The funny thing is that the ones who ridicule and point fingers at those who do not buy into the 911 theory are just as guilty of bias, prejudice and hate as they claim the government is.
They are part of the problem, not the solution. Their vehement hatred consumes them to the point that they are willing to mock, ridicule and slander anyone that does not fit into their regime.
I respect those who treat the subject with rational conversation and I am not speaking of those. I am speaking of the ones who become angry and spiteful if you disagree with them.

there are a lot more hate, your a kook mongers on the "I believe the govt fairy tale story" side of this than on the "truther" side. IMHO

Complete agreement here.

From my experience of reading and listening to many, many commentators, bloggers, 'editorialists', anchors and TV Hosts who believe the official position, their common method is to use a plethora of name calling and red-herring and/or ad hominem arguments. They virtually spit out the term: 'conspiracy theorist', as well as other labels and names, loaded with disdain and venom. Michael Reagan even called for someone to murder a particular LA-area We Are Change member who was trying to espouse 9/11 truth ideas. Or the instance of GB labeling truthers as potential terrorists. Or the recent National Geographic hit piece loaded with attempts to psychologically profle those attracted to the 9/11 truth 'aberation'.

If you devised an indexing method weighting the use of this type of rhetoric, lumped under the rubric of measuring bad argumentation techniques, anti-9/11 truthers would not fair very well. I was going to design something to do this, but never got around to it.

Why is this so? Because they rarely address the actual arguments and evidence put forth by the 'truthers'.

I think you guys have set up a false dichotomy here. You act as if the only valid possibilities are that a person is either 1.) a 9/11 government-hating conspiracy theorist or 2.) a blind government-loving shill. I don't think either of those two positions are valid or a good idea. I would rather see objective questioning of both sides. I don't believe the government nor do I believe the truthers - because believing either group would be putting my trust in the arm of the flesh, which I’ve heard is a really bad idea.

I think the reason you've set up this false dichotomy is because it's much easier to invent a ridiculous opponent/strawman, and argue against that. Also, it makes it easier to demonize the other side if you can imagine them as stupid or blindly following untrustworthy masters.

I propose that we ALL stop contending in such a manner. It’s kind of like we’re following Satan and not being "one" - and if we're not one, we’re not His. Just a thought.

[Mark]

I think you guys have set up a false dichotomy here. You act as if the only valid possibilities are that a person is either 1.) a 9/11 government-hating conspiracy theorist or 2.) a blind government-loving shill. I don't think either of those two positions are valid or a good idea. I would rather see objective questioning of both sides. I don't believe the government nor do I believe the truthers - because believing either group would be putting my trust in the arm of the flesh, which I’ve heard is a really bad idea.

I think the reason you've set up this false dichotomy is because it's much easier to invent a ridiculous opponent/strawman, and argue against that. Also, it makes it easier to demonize the other side if you can imagine them as stupid or blindly following untrustworthy masters.

I propose that we ALL stop contending in such a manner. It’s kind of like we’re following Satan and not being "one" - and if we're not one, we’re not His. Just a thought.

That is what I am trying to say here Robert. Put everybody in an either/or box and let them contend one with another to the bitter end. Nothing is ever settled . Truth is the casualty.

[NoGreaterLove]

larsenb, rcronk and mark
I think all three of you made very valid points.

larsenb.
I really do not pay much attention to the rhetoric on the media over this issue, my main exposure to the rhetoric is on this site. I guess if I did pay more attention to it on the media, I might understand your position more. I was pointing more at what goes on, on this site and my personal experiences.

[larsenb]

From my experience of reading and listening to many, many commentators, bloggers, 'editorialists', anchors and TV Hosts who believe the official position, their common method is to use a plethora of name calling and red-herring and/or ad hominem arguments. They virtually spit out the term: 'conspiracy theorist', as well as other labels and names, loaded with disdain and venom. Michael Reagan even called for someone to murder a particular LA-area We Are Change member who was trying to espouse 9/11 truth ideas. Or the instance of GB labeling truthers as potential terrorists. Or the recent National Geographic hit piece loaded with attempts to psychologically profle those attracted to the 9/11 truth 'aberation'.

If you devised an indexing method weighting the use of this type of rhetoric, lumped under the rubric of measuring bad argumentation techniques, anti-9/11 truthers would not fair very well. I was going to design something to do this, but never got around to it.

Why is this so? Because they rarely address the actual arguments and evidence put forth by the 'truthers'.

I think you guys have set up a false dichotomy here. You act as if the only valid possibilities are that a person is either 1.) a 9/11 government-hating conspiracy theorist or 2.) a blind government-loving shill. I don't think either of those two positions are valid or a good idea. I would rather see objective questioning of both sides. I don't believe the government nor do I believe the truthers - because believing either group would be putting my trust in the arm of the flesh, which I’ve heard is a really bad idea.

I think the reason you've set up this false dichotomy is because it's much easier to invent a ridiculous opponent/strawman, and argue against that. Also, it makes it easier to demonize the other side if you can imagine them as stupid or blindly following untrustworthy masters.

I propose that we ALL stop contending in such a manner. It’s kind of like we’re following Satan and not being "one" - and if we're not one, we’re not His. Just a thought.

Robert, that's you're dichtotomy, not mine. Though, I agree, it is a false dichotomy regarding the business of establishing 9/11 truth.

The dichotomy that interests me boils down to this: is the official government story about how the WTC buildings collapsed true, or is there another explanation. You then go from there.

It has nothing to do with being a 'government hating conspiracy theorist' vs. or government loving shill. Notice how you use the typical 'conspiracy theorist' epithet, even in conjunction with 'hate'. So typical, as I mentioned above.

Your statement about not believing the gov. or truthers because that would be relying on the 'arm of the flesh', is astonishing in my view. That would seem to imply you give up all reliance on your God-given analytic ability and judgement to make decisions regarding controversial subjects and maybe in every instance where you have to make a decision. Wow!
I think in areas where you have trouble like this, you could maybe strike middle ground by using your own faculties in conjunction with praying for aid in doing so, etc.

As I mentioned above, Dr. Jones and others have found evidence for indendiaries/explosives and their residues in the WTC dust. This is hard evidence that there may be something drastically wrong with the official theory.

This evidence is serious enough to demand confirmation or rebuttal using the normal scientific process. I've seen some confirmation of this evidence from other sources, but not yet any papers (peer-reviewed, please) that seriously challenge it.

Unless your stuck in some seriously solipsistic theory of knowledge as part of your world view, this finding should at least make you doubt the official theory a little bit, until adequately rebutted.

[larsenb]

I think you guys have set up a false dichotomy here. You act as if the only valid possibilities are that a person is either 1.) a 9/11 government-hating conspiracy theorist or 2.) a blind government-loving shill. I don't think either of those two positions are valid or a good idea. I would rather see objective questioning of both sides. I don't believe the government nor do I believe the truthers - because believing either group would be putting my trust in the arm of the flesh, which I’ve heard is a really bad idea.

I think the reason you've set up this false dichotomy is because it's much easier to invent a ridiculous opponent/strawman, and argue against that. Also, it makes it easier to demonize the other side if you can imagine them as stupid or blindly following untrustworthy masters.

I propose that we ALL stop contending in such a manner. It’s kind of like we’re following Satan and not being "one" - and if we're not one, we’re not His. Just a thought.

That is what I am trying to say here Robert. Put everybody in an either/or box and let them contend one with another to the bitter end. Nothing is ever settled . Truth is the casualty.

Mark, I for one have no interest in putting you in a box of any type. However, if you bring up points I disagree with regarding this or that, including 9/11, this being a political discussion group and all, I may be sorely tempted to tell you why I disagree with you. Heck, I may even grade into being rude, heaven forbid. But, as we all know, that would be my problem and has more to do with exasperation than anything else.

The way I look at it, anyone that reads Hugh Nibley's Approaching Zion, can't be all bad.

[Mark]

I think you guys have set up a false dichotomy here. You act as if the only valid possibilities are that a person is either 1.) a 9/11 government-hating conspiracy theorist or 2.) a blind government-loving shill. I don't think either of those two positions are valid or a good idea. I would rather see objective questioning of both sides. I don't believe the government nor do I believe the truthers - because believing either group would be putting my trust in the arm of the flesh, which I’ve heard is a really bad idea.

I think the reason you've set up this false dichotomy is because it's much easier to invent a ridiculous opponent/strawman, and argue against that. Also, it makes it easier to demonize the other side if you can imagine them as stupid or blindly following untrustworthy masters.

I propose that we ALL stop contending in such a manner. It’s kind of like we’re following Satan and not being "one" - and if we're not one, we’re not His. Just a thought.

That is what I am trying to say here Robert. Put everybody in an either/or box and let them contend one with another to the bitter end. Nothing is ever settled . Truth is the casualty.

Mark, I for one have no interest in putting you in a box of any type. However, if you bring up points I disagree with regarding this or that, including 9/11, this being a political discussion group and all, I may be sorely tempted to tell you why I disagree with you. Heck, I may even grade into being rude, heaven forbid. But, as we all know, that would be my problem and has more to do with exasperation than anything else.

The way I look at it, anyone that reads Hugh Nibley's Approaching Zion, can't be all bad.

Whats your favorite Nibley lecture in the book Bro? I still grapple with "What is Zion; A Distant View" and re-read it whenever I want to make myself feel like a smuck. Nibley loved to quote Bro. Brigham. He has caused me a few sleepless nights. Babylon is such an appealing place to live and work. What will come of me if I leave its employ?

[larsenb]

larsenb, rcronk and mark
I think all three of you made very valid points.

larsenb.
I really do not pay much attention to the rhetoric on the media over this issue, my main exposure to the rhetoric is on this site. I guess if I did pay more attention to it on the media, I might understand your position more. I was pointing more at what goes on, on this site and my personal experiences.

Fair enough. As I mentioned in my last post, I'm more interested in whether the official theory is correct or not. And if not, which I highly suspect and believe, the details regarding who all was involved and how they did it needs to be sorted out in a legal investigation.

Do I have strong suspicions about some individuals in government. Yes. But I don't think accusations against them should be the starting point or primary public focus of the 9/11 truth movement. It is counter productive, as we see by some of the discussion in this forum.

Should connections people see between individuals and 9/11 events and their coverup be ignored and made taboo? Not at all. These things are worthy of discussion in my view. But the accusations and labeling need to be toned down considerable.

My experience w/anti-9/11 truth articles and literature is fairly extensive. I've had article after article, etc., sent to me by family members and others as well as my own researches, for instance. The derrogation in these articles really seems like a common thread to much of it. That's just my experience.

[Mark]

Fair enough. As I mentioned in my last post, I'm more interested in whether the official theory is correct or not. And if not, which I highly suspect and believe, the details regarding who all was involved and how they did it needs to be sorted out in a legal investigation.

Do I have strong suspicions about some individuals in government. Yes. But I don't think accusations against them should be the starting point or primary public focus of the 9/11 truth movement. It is counter productive, as we see by some much of the discussion in this forum.

Should connections people see between individuals and 9/11 events and their coverup be ignored and made taboo. Not at all. These things are worthy of discussion in my view. But the accusations and labeling need to be toned down considerable.

My experience w/anti-9/11 truth articles and literature is fairly extensive. I've had article after article, etc., sent to me by family members and others as well as my own researches, for instance. The derrogation in these articles really seems like a common thread to much of it. That's just my experience.

Your level headed methods would lend a lot of credibility to the movement larsen. Its to bad some high profile big mouth jerks have tainted that credibility out of a desire for attention or personal gain.

[larsenb]

Oops. I thot I was editing my previous post.

[larsenb]

Fair enough. As I mentioned in my last post, I'm more interested in whether the official theory is correct or not. And if not, which I highly suspect and believe, the details regarding who all was involved and how they did it needs to be sorted out in a legal investigation.

Do I have strong suspicions about some individuals in government. Yes. But I don't think accusations against them should be the starting point or primary public focus of the 9/11 truth movement. It is counter productive, as we see by some much of the discussion in this forum.

Should connections people see between individuals and 9/11 events and their coverup be ignored and made taboo. Not at all. These things are worthy of discussion in my view. But the accusations and labeling need to be toned down considerable.

My experience w/anti-9/11 truth articles and literature is fairly extensive. I've had article after article, etc., sent to me by family members and others as well as my own researches, for instance. The derrogation in these articles really seems like a common thread to much of it. That's just my experience.

Your level headed methods would lend a lot of credibility to the movement larsen. Its to bad some high profile big mouth jerks have tainted that credibility out of a desire for attention or personal gain.

Well, Mark, as you know, I've slipped at bit here and there.

Appoaching Zion? Hard to make a pick. Probably, The Law of Consecration. But different chapters strike me differently every time I read the book.

[larsenb]

Whats your favorite Nibley lecture in the book Bro? I still grapple with "What is Zion; A Distant View" and re-read it whenever I want to make myself feel like a smuck. Nibley loved to quote Bro. Brigham. He has caused me a few sleepless nights. Babylon is such an appealing place to live and work. What will come of me if I leave its employ?

I know what you mean. Tough to even begin to extract yourself.

But WHY Mark, would you set yourself up with a question such as: "What will come of me if I leave its employ?" You must be slipping.

The answer is very simple: you'll become like Wiikwajio, of course!

[Mark]

Whats your favorite Nibley lecture in the book Bro? I still grapple with "What is Zion; A Distant View" and re-read it whenever I want to make myself feel like a smuck. Nibley loved to quote Bro. Brigham. He has caused me a few sleepless nights. Babylon is such an appealing place to live and work. What will come of me if I leave its employ?

I know what you mean. Tough to even begin to extract yourself.

But WHY Mark, would you set yourself up with a question such as: "What will come of me if I leave its employ?" You must be slipping.

The answer if very simple: you'll become like Wiikwajio, of course!

Touche Bro.

[Mark]

Fair enough. As I mentioned in my last post, I'm more interested in whether the official theory is correct or not. And if not, which I highly suspect and believe, the details regarding who all was involved and how they did it needs to be sorted out in a legal investigation.

Do I have strong suspicions about some individuals in government. Yes. But I don't think accusations against them should be the starting point or primary public focus of the 9/11 truth movement. It is counter productive, as we see by some much of the discussion in this forum.

Should connections people see between individuals and 9/11 events and their coverup be ignored and made taboo. Not at all. These things are worthy of discussion in my view. But the accusations and labeling need to be toned down considerable.

My experience w/anti-9/11 truth articles and literature is fairly extensive. I've had article after article, etc., sent to me by family members and others as well as my own researches, for instance. The derrogation in these articles really seems like a common thread to much of it. That's just my experience.

Your level headed methods would lend a lot of credibility to the movement larsen. Its to bad some high profile big mouth jerks have tainted that credibility out of a desire for attention or personal gain.

Well, Mark, as you know, I've slipped at bit here and there.

Appoaching Zion? Hard to make a pick. Probably, The Law of Consecration. But different chapters strike me differently every time I read the book.

You must be a masochist. Have you read this little parable by Card? Do our possessions own us?


http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-consec.html

[larsenb]

Well, Mark, as you know, I've slipped at bit here and there.

Appoaching Zion? Hard to make a pick. Probably, The Law of Consecration. But different chapters strike me differently every time I read the book.

You must be a masochist. Have you read this little parable by Card? Do our possessions own us?

http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-consec.html

Excellent! Right on the 'money'. Very much in keeping with Gileadi's analysis via Isaiah regarding the modern-day idols we serve.

. . . . . and, sadly enough, too much of an indictment of me.

[Mark]

Well, Mark, as you know, I've slipped at bit here and there.

Appoaching Zion? Hard to make a pick. Probably, The Law of Consecration. But different chapters strike me differently every time I read the book.

You must be a masochist. Have you read this little parable by Card? Do our possessions own us?

http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-consec.html

Excellent! Right on the 'money'. Very much in keeping with Gileadi's analysis via Isaiah regarding the modern-day idols we serve.

. . . . . and, sadly enough, too much of an indictment of me.

And me as well. Thank heavens for repentance. As Nibley finished his excellent article "What is Zion? A Distant View" after quoting 3 Nep 6:15 he concludes by saying "I pray that there may be some Latter Day Saints who do not succumb to the last and most determined onslaught of Babylon, which I believe may be coming." It should cause all of us great reflection on where our hearts really do lie.

[Col. Flagg]

http://www.911myths.com is pathetic and pitiful in their attempts to come up with excuses and science (which is junk) that exonerates the official fairy tale. The site isn't even very professional in its appearance or maintenance.

Look at these two sites and tell me which looks more professional and credible... these two or 911myths.com...

http://www.ae911truth.org

http://www.911truth.org

[rcronk]

http://www.911myths.com is pathetic and pitiful in their attempts to come up with excuses and science (which is junk) that exonerates the official fairy tale. The site isn't even very professional in its appearance or maintenance.

Look at these two sites and tell me which looks more professional and credible... these two or 911myths.com...

http://www.ae911truth.org

http://www.911truth.org

You're right. Those two sites do look more professional. They must be true.

Have you spent any time over at http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=91 debating these topics? If not, you might want to take your strongest argument over there and see what they have to say about it. If you do, let me know and I'll go watch. Have a great Thursday!

[BroJones]

Robert, it has been years since I've seen you and a LONG time since we've talked. I'm happy to see that we agree with this, as you said,
"... as if the only valid possibilities are that a person is either 1.) a 9/11 government-hating conspiracy theorist or 2.) a blind government-loving shill. I don't think either of those two positions are valid or a good idea. I would rather see objective questioning of both sides. I don't believe the government..."

Agreed that either 1.) or 2.) would be a false dichotomy -- and that (as regards 9/11 in particular) -- "I don't believe the government" either.

As Joseph Smith said, "truth cuts its own way" -- and I trust that is what is drawing us closer to a common viewpoint here.

Have you read our paper on the red/gray chips found in multiple independent WTC dust samples? if so, any questions?