| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| What motivates you?; Question to official-story defenders | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jan 31 2008, 11:43 PM (1,609 Views) | |
| Diane | Jan 31 2008, 11:43 PM Post #1 |
|
To official-story defenders, especially to those of you who spend a lot of time on this issue: What motivates you to spend so much time defending the official story? Why is this personally important to you? On both sides, I've noticed a tendency to perceive the other side as dishonest or worse. Perhaps if we understood each other's feelings and motives better, we might be less inclined to assume the worst about each other? |
 |
 
|
| defaultdotxbe | Feb 1 2008, 12:18 PM Post #2 |
|
to be compeltely honest, entertainment. i enjoy a good debate
while i percieve many of the so-called "leaders" of the truth movement as dishonest, i have never engaged any of them in discussion, the folks i encounter i feel just have not been exposed to the evidence (i assume many in the truth movement feel the same about me) however after lengthy debates and much research, it becomes more difficult to assume the person you are talking to has not been exposed to the evidence (since youve been giving it to him/her throughout your exchange) so then it comes down to 2 possibilities 1: the have not looked at the evidence youve presented to them 2: they have looked at the evidence and ignored it because they dont like being wrong 3: they have looked at the evidence, and have honestly come to a different conclusion number 1 is usually the first assumption, since it directly follows the initial assumption that they havent seen the evidence, however when "debunking" and "debunking the debunking" comes into play it becomes clear they have looked at the evidence, so then the assumption moves on to #2, dishonesty #3 is rarely ever reached by either side, because it requires one to concede their evidence is not 100% conclusive (as both sides often claim their evidence is) but ambiguous enough to allow different conclusions to be reached |
|
|
|
| Diane | Feb 1 2008, 03:46 PM Post #3 |
|
Is this motive typical of official-story defenders, I wonder? I would appreciate it if other official-story defenders here could tell us what motivates them.
Well, I actually think that most of the evidence is ambiguous -- although, taken together, even the ambiguous evidence adds up to some very suspicious patterns. I also think there are some close-to-rock-solid pieces of evidence, and that the movement does not emphasize these enough. Exactly what these pieces of evidence are is a topic for another thread, which I will begin if asked. In this thread, I'm just trying to understand better what makes you guys tick. Edited by Diane, Feb 1 2008, 03:47 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Arvel | Feb 1 2008, 06:55 PM Post #4 |
|
Just as truthers are afraid of what the ramifications of a government conspiracy would be, I am afraid of the ramifications the truth movement could have if they are wrong but take action with enough people. That is my motivation. |
|
|
|
| Diane | Feb 1 2008, 07:07 PM Post #5 |
|
What specific possible ramifications are you most afraid of? |
|
|
|
| TruthSquad | Feb 1 2008, 11:58 PM Post #6 |
|
Hi Diane, I typically don't get into debates with truthers. Most truthers ignore evidence that is presneted to them. After they ignore you, they yell "inside job" and "government shill"....heck even here under my name there was a lable were it was stated i was a "Government Loyalist". I talk about the facts about 911 with "fence sitters." I do this so that they may learn the facts of what happened. I am a bleeding heart liberal that HATES Republicans and what they stand for. BUT...Bush did NOT orchestrate nor did he intentionally allow 911. However, I admit I have debated many truthers over the past 4 years only to have them ignore facts that are presented to them. Not sure if that answers your question. TS |
|
|
|
| Diane | Feb 2 2008, 12:15 AM Post #7 |
|
It doesn't. My question is what is it that motivates you to spend lots of time talking about and thinking about this issue in the first place, regardless of whom you choose to talk to about it, and regardless of the aim of specific conversations. What do you see as your personal stake in the issue, for example? More generally, what is your basis for caring about the issue? What are your underlying concerns? What is the source of your passion? Edited by Diane, Feb 2 2008, 12:16 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Arvel | Feb 2 2008, 12:18 AM Post #8 |
|
It's more that I don't know what will happen. If the movement turned violent, things could get messy, be it riots, a mass uprising, or whatever. I don't know how far it could escalate, but I don't want to have to find out. On the other hand, if such a future is not in store for the movement, or if 9/11 was indeed an inside job, fighting it would not be a productive activity. So I try to stay reasonable and civil, hopefully helping the movement through healthy criticism. Maybe I get carried away sometimes. I don't know. But I try. |
|
|
|
| Sam | Feb 2 2008, 07:59 AM Post #9 |
|
I am interested in the truth and do not want to see others tricked by quote mining , false "facts" and misleading videos and lectures. But I find that I think most "truthers" fall into category 3 3: they have looked at the evidence, and have honestly come to a different conclusion. I am baffled how they arrive at their positions because I am unable to see how a person could look at the evidence and come to the inside job conclusion. I mainly attribute it to their reasoning being swayed by an intense hatred for the Bush administration (see Terral's Bushie comments although I honestly think Terral is delusional) or the powers that be be (NWO , etc) I do also enjoy a good debate but this goes beyond that. |
|
|
|
| Diane | Feb 2 2008, 09:06 AM Post #10 |
|
I would be interested to hear what the "beyond that" is in your case. |
|
|
|
| blarney fife | Feb 2 2008, 01:47 PM Post #11 |
|
From what I've been able to gather around the InterTube, the main theme of the defenders has been to protect the 'newbies' from themselves. Heaven forbid the naive be allowed to fall into the downward spiral of "woo" when Big Brother has provided us with the Best Explanation Possible (BEP) in accord with the 'evidence'. The Bush hating meme is another that comes in at or near the top of the list as well. It usually starts out as...I'm no fan of Bush either, but...I just can't get through my (apparently) thick skull how they can defend the BEP, which this administration is responsble for, and the promulgation of the Bush Doctrine (and all the nasty little internal laws) that are a direct result of the events of 9/11. We have an administation that has little or no regard for the Constitution (signing statements), hundreds of scandals, and has told so many lies, (though the defenders claim they weren't lies at the time, just bad intel) that I'm at a loss as to how anyone can defend them on any level. My 2 Ameros. Edited by blarney fife, Feb 2 2008, 03:33 PM.
|
|
|
|
| IVXX | Feb 2 2008, 02:13 PM Post #12 |
MDCCLXXVI
|
Hey something we agree on. Bush had nothing to do with 9/11 and anyone who says Bush did it needs their head checked. However there is more than enough evidence that shows some in the government at least knew the attacks were coming and did nothing.
I find the same with skeptics. If you talk about anything besides the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and Flight 93 they either have no clue or just ignore the facts you present to them. |
|
|
|
| defaultdotxbe | Feb 2 2008, 02:31 PM Post #13 |
|
at what point does it end? if bush says the earth is ground do you join the flat earth society rather than "defend" him? if bush says hes not a shape-shifting reptile do you jump in with the david icke crowd rather than "defend" him? if bush says the sky is blue do you claim its plaid? agreeing with someone doesnt equate to "defending" them, and bush didnt personally pen the "official story," the NIST report comes from as much private citizen input as government, and multiple other organizations have arrived independently arrived at the same conclusions |
|
|
|
| blarney fife | Feb 2 2008, 03:05 PM Post #14 |
|
Excuse my hyperbole Mr. Literal. I believe the topic is defending the official story of 9/11. I don't think I would waste the time of day addressing the flat earth or hollow earth, shape-shifting, sky is plaid crowd, either pro or con. I didn't say Bush personally penned the "official story" now did I? I am of the opinion he'd have a hard time penning the story of My Pet Goat. I was under the impression the majority of the NIST report came from private citizen input...under the employ of the USG. As far as independent organizations arriving at the same conclusions, I suppose that's inevitable when you start with the same assumptions. |
|
|
|
| Diane | Feb 2 2008, 03:33 PM Post #15 |
|
That is indeed one of their main "themes," but my question is why this matters to them. What exactly are they personally afraid of, for example? Edited by Diane, Feb 2 2008, 03:35 PM.
|
|
|
|
| defaultdotxbe | Feb 2 2008, 03:53 PM Post #16 |
|
my point is the attitude im getting from you is "if it comes from the government it must be wrong" and "if it agrees with the government it must be wrong too" so i asked if this means the government is inherently wrong about everything, such as the shape of the earth and the color of the sky unless of course your saying "even if their right we shouldnt defend them because they are the government" which is even more confusing to me, especially since all both sides want to do is spread the truth Edited by defaultdotxbe, Feb 2 2008, 03:53 PM.
|
|
|
|
| blarney fife | Feb 2 2008, 04:45 PM Post #17 |
|
[/quote]
If the "government" says "2+2=whatever we say it does" and "independent" says "yep, that's the ticket"...then your point is correct.
I think I answered this little absurdity in the previous post.
If that's the spin you choose to put on it...you must live in a very confusing world. Oooops....I see you've already done that. Edited by blarney fife, Feb 2 2008, 04:50 PM.
|
|
|
|
| defaultdotxbe | Feb 2 2008, 05:29 PM Post #18 |
|
but what of the independents who agree with the official story? you still claim (from your previous post) that they are simply basing it on the governments work you seem to redefine whats "independent" based on whether they agree with you or not, although i see that a lot from both sides |
|
|
|
| no family | Feb 2 2008, 05:50 PM Post #19 |
|
what motivates me: 1) Participating in online discussions, debates and research prepares me, and all of us, really, for the discussions we have in real life with friends, family, co-workers, etc. It allows us to familiarize ourselves with issues that commonly arise. And it sometimes gives somewhat of an insight to garden variety mentalities. We are all different, but every once in a while you may find someone whose mentality online that is similar to someone you know in person, and you may have an idea of how they operate. 2) I have discovered that some people are obsessively paranoid. Sometimes it's completely irrational. Many times it is based on events of past government corruption that lingers in their mind. A mentality that suggests that because there has been so much government corruption and scandal and cover-up in the past, it must mean that 9/11 is as well. This is unhealthy. And potentialy dangerous. It is no different than racism. 3) I try to get people to look at motive and logic. All the trouble that an inside job would require. Many of these inside job theories require people going well out of their way to get certain things done. What is the goal of 9/11 and was this the most effecient way to reach that goal? Has the goal even been achieved? The cover-up itself is more complicated than the attacks. The cover-up has to last a lifetime. 4)9/11 was a day of unprecedented events. People have expectations of how these things should have happened, but have nothing to trully base these expectaions on, because theyve never happened before. Take this with an already paranoid suspicious mentality towards the governemnt and it snowballs from there. By the way, I've never trusted Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, or Karl Rove. I am aware of the PNAC - Project for New American Century. I am open to the idea that some of the events of 9/11 were allowed to happen. But the events were not planned "inside" the US government. Edited by no family, Feb 2 2008, 05:55 PM.
|
|
|
|
| blarney fife | Feb 2 2008, 06:13 PM Post #20 |
|
If A's proposition/conclusion is wrong... And B's proposition/conclusion supports A... ...both are still wrong whether I (or you) agree with it or not. We disagree on whether all the ifs and buts and candy and nuts and been weighed in relative measure that define what happened on 9/11. Your 'side' seems to be satisfied they have, and my 'side' doesn't. But this is off topic and is better suited to the investigation thread, where we've both had input as well. |
|
|
|
| Diane | Feb 2 2008, 07:32 PM Post #21 |
|
The above does not address my question. What motivates you to spend any significant amount of time discussing this matter with friends, family, co-workers in the first place? Your second point is more relevant:
So you're afraid of the possible dangers of a paranoid mentality. Could you elaborate on these dangers? Anyhow, it is by no means true that everyone in the 9/11 Truth movement is motivated by an assumption that everything bad in the world must automatically be the fault of the U.S. government. I agree with you that that kind of reasoning is flawed. But there is plenty of evidence apart from such an assumption.
In my opinion, many official-story defenders exaggerate how complicated this would need to be. To be fair, though, various people in the 9/11 Truth movement have also espoused theories that would make the job unnecessarily complicated.
In my opinion, the most likely main motive was to rally popular support for an invasion of Afghanistan. There were preparations for an invasion of Afghanistan before 9/11, as documented, for example, in the news stories listed in the section on The war in Afghanistan in my blog post My main reasons for being suspicious about 9/11. But, if 9/11 had NOT happened, it would have been extremely difficult to rally any support at all for an invasion of Afghanistan, given what a meat-grinder Afghanistan had been for the Soviets back in the 1980's. I think there were various other motives too, such as drumming up support for a century of U.S. imperialism ("war on terror"). (See the pages on the CFR website referenced in this comment on my blog.)
Afghanistan was indeed invaded without much question. The PATRIOT act was passed. Various other likely goals were indeed achieved, at least in the short run, although pesky antiwar movements inevitably do spring up eventually.
Depends how you envision the coverup being achieved, which depends partly, also, on how many people you think were knowingly involved in the crime in the first place.
More research does need to be done on the question of what would have been reasonable expectations. However, there have been blatant lies on this issue, both by the government and by official-story defenders. (See the section on the lack of air defense in my blog post My main reasons for being suspicious about 9/11.)
That in itself, if true, is treason. If you think it's at all likely that that's true, you should support our call for a new investigation, even while disagreeing with the MIHOP view. Not everyone in the 9/11 Truth movement favors the MIHOP view. Edited by Diane, Feb 2 2008, 07:37 PM.
|
|
|
|
| William Rea | Feb 2 2008, 08:40 PM Post #22 |
|
Diane, this is slightly off topic but I thought it was worth adding to the debate on motivation. From my observation of their behaviour there appears to be an overwhelming motivational factor for the "skeptic". There are two elements of this behaviour that I label as passive and active. The active is the observable irrationality in behaviour that is manifested in many ways, most of which are abusive. The passive is an acceptance of the active behaviour. To suspend conventional standards of intercourse in such a way, even in the rarified atmosphere of an internet forum indicates the strength of this motivational factor. Edited by William Rea, Feb 2 2008, 09:05 PM.
|
|
|
|
| no family | Feb 2 2008, 08:49 PM Post #23 |
|
Because when friends, family, co-workers try to engage me in the subject, I respect them enough to do so. Because it's a relevant event in our lives. Because I too, like you, live in NYC. Because it is a fascinating topic that reveals the humanity, or inhumanity, in us all. Why WOULDN'T ANYONE spend time discussing it? Your question, and persistence of it, is kind of strange. Edited by no family, Feb 2 2008, 08:56 PM.
|
|
|
|
| no family | Feb 2 2008, 09:08 PM Post #24 |
|
I should also add...
...I don't spend much time discussing it. I have no blog, no website, no book about 9/11. I posted briefly on the old loosechange forum and just recently started posting on this new one. I dont attend any rallies or meetings. I don't choose friends based on their beliefs of the topic. I have very close friends who strongly disagree with me. |
|
|
|
| Diane | Feb 2 2008, 09:27 PM Post #25 |
|
This renders my question irrelevant, as far as you're concerned, then. My question was addressed, primarily, to those who do spend a lot of time discussing it, both online and offline. I'm sorry I didn't make that clear. I'm accustomed, elsewhere online, to run-ins with die-hard "debunkers." I'm trying to figure out what makes them tick. You're obviously not one of them. Sorry about the misunderstanding. Edited by Diane, Feb 2 2008, 09:28 PM.
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
6:17 PM Nov 30
