Split from "Jon Ronson on CNN"

[Gravy]

Jon Ronson wrote:

Damn! You got me! I'm part of the Jewish conspiracy. Just a dirty Jew pulling the strings...

Judaism = A Religion

Israel = A Nation State

Zionism = An extremist Religeo-Political idealism

I don't see any references to Judaism in this thread, Jon; ...or in too many other places on this forum!

So what, exactly, is your rationale for making this comment?

Ian R. Crane

Hello all. First post here.

Ian, perhaps you'd like to comment on the statement that elicited Jon Ronson's sarcastic response.

Because I often disagree with them, conspiracy theorists often accuse me, without a shred of evidence, of being a "government shill" or a spy, or of being on some secret payroll. It's happened five times in the last four days. I'd like to know why they do that, but they never have an explanation. Anyone have ideas?

Edit: Whoops, I just noticed that I'm responding to a post from a few days ago.

[scar]

Hi there, welcome.
Its hard to say why someone would call you a shill without knowing the situation that gave rise to the accusation. You say its because you both disagreed and sometimes thats why the word gets used.
Humans love labels though dont they...
If you believe the official conspiracy theory on 911 then you are a 'conspiracy theorist' too, much as people try and argue with that it is the truth. All of us 'conspiracy theorists' arent the same are we.

Hope you enjoy your stay here.

scar

[DeFecToR]

If i might ofer a partial response. One problem that can arise, as i'm becoming familiar with, is that when people who are uneducated on a subject that could be concidered 'conspiracy theory' they tend to approach the subject with sarcasm and derision. Whats worse, is when those people appear to have a basic knowledge of the subject but still behave in the same fashion it can lead one to think that either; a - that person is incapable of critical reasoning or basic logical thinking, or; b - that person is deliberately trying to 'muddy' the arguement for alterior purposes.

One of the reasons many 911 truthers for example, are quick to believe that latter is because through research of 911 and related subjects, it soon becomes obvious that there are a LOT of these people floating around the debate. The intelligence services spend a lot of time and money on 'cointelpro' type activities whereby they infiltrate movements with the aim of steering it towards a harmless direction. This, it must be noted, is very much the exception to the rule however, as most people who would be concidered 'shills' are simply either trying to protect their own careers or pride. A good example would be someone who knows full well that 911 was an inside job, but in order to further his career as, say, a newscaster, keeps quiet about it or voices an opinion opposite to what he actually knows.

I would say, if you're being called a shill, get clued up first on the subject you are discussing (obviously with as open a mind as possible) and then voice an opinion on it. This way, at least you'll find it easier to understand the views that others have, and will be able to engage them in a productive debate.

That or you ARE on some payroll.

[chipmunk stew]

If i might ofer a partial response. One problem that can arise, as i'm becoming familiar with, is that when people who are uneducated on a subject that could be concidered 'conspiracy theory' they tend to approach the subject with sarcasm and derision. Whats worse, is when those people appear to have a basic knowledge of the subject but still behave in the same fashion it can lead one to think that either; a - that person is incapable of critical reasoning or basic logical thinking, or; b - that person is deliberately trying to 'muddy' the arguement for alterior purposes.

One of the reasons many 911 truthers for example, are quick to believe that latter is because through research of 911 and related subjects, it soon becomes obvious that there are a LOT of these people floating around the debate. The intelligence services spend a lot of time and money on 'cointelpro' type activities whereby they infiltrate movements with the aim of steering it towards a harmless direction. This, it must be noted, is very much the exception to the rule however, as most people who would be concidered 'shills' are simply either trying to protect their own careers or pride. A good example would be someone who knows full well that 911 was an inside job, but in order to further his career as, say, a newscaster, keeps quiet about it or voices an opinion opposite to what he actually knows.

I would say, if you're being called a shill, get clued up first on the subject you are discussing (obviously with as open a mind as possible) and then voice an opinion on it. This way, at least you'll find it easier to understand the views that others have, and will be able to engage them in a productive debate.

That or you ARE on some payroll.

Hello, everyone. First post.
I've been stuck with the shill label a number of times, too.

@DeFecToR: There's one type of person omitted from your descriptions of people who don't believe the Inside Job theory--those who are well-read on the subject, have spent a lot of time discussing and weighing the evidence, have no personal agenda to defend or material motive to uphold, and yet still don't believe the Inside Job theory. Do you suppose this type of person does not exist?

Also, how do the cointel infiltrators "steer movements towards a harmless direction"? I don't quite understand what you mean by that phrase.

Thank you.

[brian]

Hi chipmunk stew, could you give an example of this "one type" you refer to and show by their argument and reasoning they are "well-read on the subject"

It will be a first for myself.

If you are not that familiar with the issue I can assure you they are the proverbial hens teeth.

As for - "how do the cointel infiltrators "steer movements towards a harmless direction"? - "what you mean by that phrase"

The old "divide and rule" tactic would be the simplest way of explaining it but others may wish to elaborate.

[chipmunk stew]

As for - "how do the cointel infiltrators "steer movements towards a harmless direction"? - "what you mean by that phrase"

The old "divide and rule" tactic would be the simplest way of explaining it but others may wish to elaborate.

Are you referring to no-plane theories, chemtrails, H-bomb theories, etc? Spreading "alternative" theories in an attempt to discredit the movement as a whole?

[DeFecToR]

First off. Hi Chipmunk Stew and welcome

Yup, well, Brian basically got it there.

@DeFecToR: There's one type of person omitted from your descriptions of people who don't believe the Inside Job theory--those who are well-read on the subject, have spent a lot of time discussing and weighing the evidence, have no personal agenda to defend or material motive to uphold, and yet still don't believe the Inside Job theory. Do you suppose this type of person does not exist?

The problem i would have with that definition is that for someone to be fully versed in the subject of 911 and still believe the government line, they would have to be the absolute embodyment of cognitive dissonance. There would have to be so much information that that person would have to either ignore or completely misunderstand that they could hardly be called an authority on the subject. Granted, there are many people who seem to be experts who support the government line, but those people have often been shown to be entirely biased for one reason or another, stretching facts to fit their opinion whilst completely disregarding others.
Like Brian says, if the above catagory of person exists, roll him out.

Also, how do the cointel infiltrators "steer movements towards a harmless direction"? I don't quite understand what you mean by that phrase.

Thank you.

What i meant was that cointelpro type infiltrators have the aim of steering the given movement towards a direction that is deemed harmless by those who employed those infiltrators.

[chipmunk stew]

Hi chipmunk stew, could you give an example of this "one type" you refer to and show by their argument and reasoning they are "well-read on the subject"

It will be a first for myself.

If you are not that familiar with the issue I can assure you they are the proverbial hens teeth.

I'm quite familiar with the issue. I can give you several examples. At the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) forums you'll find quite a few of them (Gravy and myself being two of them). You'll find two at the Screw Loose Change blog. You'll find one main one, plus a few guests, at 911myths.com. You'll find one (author is anonymous) at Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories.

There's a few off the top of my head.

[Gravy]

If i might ofer a partial response. One problem that can arise, as i'm becoming familiar with, is that when people who are uneducated on a subject that could be concidered 'conspiracy theory' they tend to approach the subject with sarcasm and derision. Whats worse, is when those people appear to have a basic knowledge of the subject but still behave in the same fashion it can lead one to think that either; a - that person is incapable of critical reasoning or basic logical thinking, or; b - that person is deliberately trying to 'muddy' the arguement for alterior purposes.

One of the reasons many 911 truthers for example, are quick to believe that latter is because through research of 911 and related subjects, it soon becomes obvious that there are a LOT of these people floating around the debate. The intelligence services spend a lot of time and money on 'cointelpro' type activities whereby they infiltrate movements with the aim of steering it towards a harmless direction. This, it must be noted, is very much the exception to the rule however, as most people who would be concidered 'shills' are simply either trying to protect their own careers or pride. A good example would be someone who knows full well that 911 was an inside job, but in order to further his career as, say, a newscaster, keeps quiet about it or voices an opinion opposite to what he actually knows.

I would say, if you're being called a shill, get clued up first on the subject you are discussing (obviously with as open a mind as possible) and then voice an opinion on it. This way, at least you'll find it easier to understand the views that others have, and will be able to engage them in a productive debate.

That or you ARE on some payroll.

Thanks for your response. In another thread, people responded that my first post HERE was dishonest, and that I am obviously a shill!

THAT's what I'm talking about. I should have made it clear that the people who called me a shill recently knew nothing of me or my 9/11 knowledge. It was simply their first reaction to hearing that I opposed their views.

By the way, I think you'll find me reasonably well-informed about 9/11.

[DeFecToR]

Are you referring to no-plane theories, chemtrails, H-bomb theories, etc? Spreading "alternative" theories in an attempt to discredit the movement as a whole?

Just to note, while it may reduce the validity of my opinion in your eyes, i feel i must be honest with you. Myself and a growing number of friends are sick to death of photographing the unexplained airial activity over this part of the world. We dont know whats its all about but we know it is not normal air traffic. And just incase you are wondering, i was as big a sceptic over the 'chemtrails' as anyone up until a few months ago. I certainly did not wish to lump myself in the tinfoil had brigade but i guess thats something i have no control over.

That said, lets keep these posts on topic. I just felt i needed to say that.

[kbo234]

This site is under attack again.

I know lots of smart people. I'm no fool myself.

I have yet to meet ANYONE who has looked at the evidence and failed to be convinced that 9/11 was an inside job.

We know what Chipmunk Stew and Gravy are. They are batting for the evil bas*ards who are scared of being nailed for the crime. The international bankers and their ilk.

What kind of souls do such creatures possess? Only the Talmud declares a lie holy (if it serves the interest of Zion).

Spit on their shadow and move on.

[DeFecToR]

By the way, I think you'll find me reasonably well-informed about 9/11.

Forgive me then but i must ask. Have you worked out any valid explanations for the numerous inconsistencies regarding 911? Most notably;

Building 7

Norad standdown

Advanced warnings

Evidence of explosive demolition

Flight 93

The Pentagon

Bin Laden history

Eye witness reports

I'll leave it there or else this list will go on a while.

[Gravy]

This site is under attack again.

I know lots of smart people. I'm no fool myself.

I have yet to meet ANYONE who has looked at the evidence and failed to be convinced that 9/11 was an inside job.

We know what Chipmunk Stew and Gravy are. They are batting for the evil bas*ards who are scared of being nailed for the crime. The international bankers and their ilk.

What kind of souls do such creatures possess? Only the Talmud declares a lie holy (if it serves the interest of Zion).

Spit on their shadow and move on.

That's one of the more paranoid posts I've come across in my few months of 9/11 posting. Get a hold of yourself, my friend. If I'm batting for the international bankers, I'm being grossly underpaid.

Let's stick to evidence, shall we?

[scar]

Thanks for your response. In another thread, people responded that my first post HERE was dishonest, and that I am obviously a shill!

THAT's what I'm talking about. I should have made it clear that the people who called me a shill recently knew nothing of me or my 9/11 knowledge. It was simply their first reaction to hearing that I opposed their views.

By the way, I think you'll find me reasonably well-informed about 9/11.

No i didnt. I never called you a shill. Dishonesty again.
I said your first post was dishonest because as the author of hitpieces against loose change, which you didnt mention, you said
"I'd like to know why they do that, but they never have an explanation. Anyone have ideas?

This is dishonest. The reason people, rightly or wrongly, would accuse you of being a shill is obvious. You spend your time refuting a film they believe in.
And now you say i called you a shill - quote me calling you that please.
i NEVER call anyone a shill so im sure you wont be able to find that quote.
Bye.

[DeFecToR]

This site is under attack again.

I know lots of smart people. I'm no fool myself.

I have yet to meet ANYONE who has looked at the evidence and failed to be convinced that 9/11 was an inside job.

We know what Chipmunk Stew and Gravy are. They are batting for the evil bas*ards who are scared of being nailed for the crime. The international bankers and their ilk.

What kind of souls do such creatures possess? Only the Talmud declares a lie holy (if it serves the interest of Zion).

Spit on their shadow and move on.

Wooooo

Hold on there big fella. Should that be the case i'll prep the guilotine for you myself, but we really should at least guage their level of knowledge on 911, and their reasons for what they believe. (I know i may well be a hipocrite concidering my response to Jon Ronson but i'm trying to learn from my mistakes).

[Gravy]

By the way, I think you'll find me reasonably well-informed about 9/11.

Forgive me then but i must ask. Have you worked out any valid explanations for the numerous inconsistencies regarding 911? Most notably;

Building 7

Norad standdown

Advanced warnings

Evidence of explosive demolition

Flight 93

The Pentagon

Bin Laden history

Eye witness reports

I'll leave it there or else this list will go on a while.

Let's take one at a time. Which would you like to discuss, and should that be done in another thread?

[DeFecToR]

Thanks for your response. In another thread, people responded that my first post HERE was dishonest, and that I am obviously a shill!

THAT's what I'm talking about. I should have made it clear that the people who called me a shill recently knew nothing of me or my 9/11 knowledge. It was simply their first reaction to hearing that I opposed their views.

By the way, I think you'll find me reasonably well-informed about 9/11.

No i didnt. I never called you a shill. Dishonesty again.
I said your first post was dishonest because as the author of hitpieces against loose change, which you didnt mention, you said
"I'd like to know why they do that, but they never have an explanation. Anyone have ideas?

This is dishonest. The reason people, rightly or wrongly, would accuse you of being a shill is obvious. You spend your time refuting a film they believe in.
And now you say i called you a shill - quote me calling you that please.
i NEVER call anyone a shill so im sure you wont be able to find that quote.
Bye.

Could you please post the URL for that topic?

[chipmunk stew]

First off. Hi Chipmunk Stew and welcome

Thank you.

The problem i would have with that definition is that for someone to be fully versed in the subject of 911 and still believe the government line, they would have to be the absolute embodyment of cognitive dissonance. There would have to be so much information that that person would have to either ignore or completely misunderstand that they could hardly be called an authority on the subject. Granted, there are many people who seem to be experts who support the government line, but those people have often been shown to be entirely biased for one reason or another, stretching facts to fit their opinion whilst completely disregarding others.
Like Brian says, if the above catagory of person exists, roll him out.

In my experience, the more fully versed someone is in the subject of 9/11 (putting all the questions and insinuations raised by Inside Jobbers under the harsh light of critical scrutiny) the more likely he is to believe the official version. And yet, I'm a private individual with no material or emotional motive to ignore evidence that would implicate members of the US government, a world government, or a shadow government in the 9/11 attacks. I've seen enough 9/11 videos and read enough 9/11 sites to burn my eyes out of their sockets. I've also pored over material supporting the official version or "debunking" the Inside Job theory. In my opinion, it's the Inside Jobbers who are ignoring and fabricating evidence, stretching facts, quote-mining, and committing other acts of deliberate dishonesty and/or ignorant mistakes.

If the conclusions you have reached are so self-evident, then why have I reached such vastly different ones?

Thank you.

[scar]

Could you please post the URL for that topic?

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=2704

You will see how i didnt call him a shill at all. Hes dishonest and that makes my throat 'fill with bile'...

[chipmunk stew]

Are you referring to no-plane theories, chemtrails, H-bomb theories, etc? Spreading "alternative" theories in an attempt to discredit the movement as a whole?

Just to note, while it may reduce the validity of my opinion in your eyes, i feel i must be honest with you. Myself and a growing number of friends are sick to death of photographing the unexplained airial activity over this part of the world. We dont know whats its all about but we know it is not normal air traffic. And just incase you are wondering, i was as big a sceptic over the 'chemtrails' as anyone up until a few months ago. I certainly did not wish to lump myself in the tinfoil had brigade but i guess thats something i have no control over.

That said, lets keep these posts on topic. I just felt i needed to say that.

Fair enough. I wasn't trying to change the subject. Just attempting to understand what direction would be considered harmless to the people orchestrating the cointel ops. Are they trying to go the direction of "the crazier the better"? Or are they trying to set up patsies, diverting attention from the real crooks? Or what?

Thank you.

[Gravy]

No i didnt. I never called you a shill. Dishonesty again.

Your quote: "I wouldnt call you a shill but its obvious why some would."

I said your first post was dishonest because as the author of hitpieces against loose change, which you didnt mention, you said
"I'd like to know why they do that, but they never have an explanation. Anyone have ideas?
This is dishonest. The reason people, rightly or wrongly, would accuse you of being a shill is obvious. You spend your time refuting a film they believe in.

And that means I'm a paid agent of the U.S. Government? Listen, Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas were the first ones to receive my critique of their work. I handed it to them. They called me a govermnent shill before they knew my name or had read my work. My question, which is germane to the OP, is why do people behave like that? Suppose I called everyone who disagreed with me on an issue and agent of some shadowy conspiracy? What would that make me?

And now you say i called you a shill - quote me calling you that please.
i NEVER call anyone a shill so im sure you wont be able to find that quote.
Bye.

So you say it's obvious why people think I'm a shill but you don't mean to imply that I am, is that right? Does that make sense to you?

[chipmunk stew]

We know what Chipmunk Stew and Gravy are. They are batting for the evil bas*ards who are scared of being nailed for the crime. The international bankers and their ilk.

I'm batting for the evidence, the truth, and the people who were murdered.

If you like, we can discuss the evidence. If not, then we can just yell "Shill!" and "Moonbat!" at each other all day. I find the latter rather boring, though.

Thank you.

[DeFecToR]

Why indeed?

I've just had a look through one of the sites you linked to;
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=58618

I was truly hoping to read something intelligent but it would appear from what i've read so far to be nothing more than the childish namecalling us 'conspiracy nuts' seem to attract.

If you have done the research you claim to have done, and still have arrived at the conclusion that the official story is watertight then my immediate thought would be that you began your search with the opinion that anyone who believes this kind of stuff is a moron. If you're a regular at the site i'm presently reading through, i really wouldnt be surprised.

Let me ask you this. What is your opinion of the tests carried out by Steven Jones on debris from the WTC that confirmed the presence of Thermate?

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/06/341238.shtml

[DeFecToR]

Could you please post the URL for that topic?

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=2704

You will see how i didnt call him a shill at all. Hes dishonest and that makes my throat 'fill with bile'...

Oh dear. I see what you mean. Plus this site that he posted as an example of 'knowledgable people' is more of the same old no substance namecalling.

[brian]

OK. lets turn this round so we the disbelievers can be educated,

chipmunk says - "In my experience, the more fully versed someone is in the subject of 9/11 (putting all the questions and insinuations raised by Inside Jobbers under the harsh light of critical scrutiny) the more likely he is to believe the official version."

Lets put aside the -" questions and insinuations raised by Inside Jobbers" and give chipmunk a chance to enlighten us.

chipmunk, what evidence convinces you the official conspiracy theory is correct?

Please put it in order of import - as far as you are concerned.

[Gravy]

Let me ask you this. What is your opinion of the tests carried out by Steven Jones on debris from the WTC that confirmed the presence of Thermate?

No, he found no evidence of Thermate. He found sulfur on steel. Thermate is about 2% sulfur. Do you know what the third-largest construction material at the World Trade Center was? Sulfur-based drywall. Also, thousands of gallons of sulfur-containing fuel oil was spilled beneath the burning piles.

So, that's all Jones found. Some sulfur on steel. What could be less surprising than that? Now, if had found aluminum oxide and barium oxide in high quantities, that would be more interesting. There is no indication whatsoever that thermite or thermate was at the WTC site. It's a shame that someone with science credentials throws the scientific method out the window when he's outside his field of expertise.

By the way, Jones's lastest theory is that Sol-Gel was used.

[dodgy]

"The evidence points directly to controlled demolition which means an inside job brought these World Trade Center buildings down," Jones told radio host Alex Jones in a video interview.

Jones says that, "using advanced techniques we're finding out what's in these samples - we're finding iron, sulphur, potassium and manganese - these are characteristic of a variation of thermite which is used to cut through steel very rapidly, it's called thermate."

"In order to have thermite in these buildings in this way, to help bring the buildings down, that means that thermite had to be planted in the buildings which of course implies directly and inside job - someone had to have access into the buildings," said Jones.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 3834100001

It's a shame that someone with science credentials throws the scientific method out the window when he's outside his field of expertise.

His speciality is mettalurgy.

If you are going to troll, try harder.

[Gravy]

Let me ask you this. What is your opinion of the tests carried out by Steven Jones on debris from the WTC that confirmed the presence of Thermate?

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/06/341238.shtml

The photo that's used on that page as evidence of thermite/thermate simply shows a column that's been cut witha blowtorch. If Jones or any others had just taken a minute to enlarge the photo, they'd see the obvious torch cutting marks, just like all the other columns have. You can even see some slag sitting on top of the debris. Below is a link to an enlargement, along with several other photos of oxyacetylene-cut columns from the WTC. If in doubt, consult any ironworker who's cut heavy steel. This is the kind of problem you run into when you don't check out the information that's put out by the "Scholars for Truth."

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8790444fc1fe0f45c.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/879044a1a9d88e3d5.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/879044bbfe7024907.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/879044a1a9d8cb822.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/879044a1a9d9086e7.jpg

[DeFecToR]

Im not talking about any photos of anything. I'm talking about the samples of molten iron that he had analysed that came back positive for not just thermite, but the specific type of thermite 'thermate' used in cutter charges.

Please read the link i provided.

[Gravy]

Jones says that, "using advanced techniques we're finding out what's in these samples - we're finding iron, sulphur, potassium and manganese - these are characteristic of a variation of thermite which is used to cut through steel very rapidly, it's called thermate."

Iron in or on steel? I am shocked, sir!
Seriously, though, I have no idea what potassium and manganese have to do with thermate. I've never heard of them as additives or by-products. Where's the barium oxide? Where's the aluminum oxide? Those materials HAVE to be there along with any other thermate by-product. If they're not there, it's not thermate.