Shills??? MOD ALERT

The discussion in this thread speaks for itself.
http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/290910-do-you-trust-us-government-9.html

Anyone who actually reads the discussion and looks at the proof that the pro-official version people are trying to obfuscate will see that they don't even believe their own arguments. If there are any viewers who don't have time to take a serious look at that discussion, I urge you not to be swayed by their rhetoric. What they say in that discussions is laughable.

 

Where did I put that irony meter? I just had it, oh. It broke because of the massive amount of irony in that statement.

 

Shills wouldn't degrade other members though so...it's all good. NOT.


The term "shill" has been explained numerous times, and it is a known tactic of "those sources that seek to spread disinformation", and is used routinely. Our beloved Bush Jr. criminal administration openly admitted as much some time ago. Shills exist. They need to be kept in the forefront because they exist. Even the shills that often post right here.

 

What are you called then?

 

Where did bush openly admit that shills exist?

 

Would you be calling me a "shill"?

- - - Updated - - -

Something relatively recent..



http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2012/02/29/cia-admits-using-msm-to-manipulate-the-usa-video/

 

29 more pages of "examples":

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/Disinformation;DefinitionsAndExamples.pdf


Anything else??

 

Of course, this whole thing of not wanting the use of the term "shill" is part and parcel of the overall objective. It distracts from the actual discussion of the disinformation and inconsistencies if the "official" BS report (that I gave up trying to serious debate with shills some time ago..). I guess that shilling worked in some sense.

 

What about the the disinformation and inconsistencies of the conspiracy theories? The pdf you posted on disinformation if more applicable to the truth movement than it is for those who advocate that the gov't wasn't a party to the 9/11 attacks- infact many if not most of the examples fetzer gives pertain specifically to the truth movement. You continually fail to realize that everyone who doesn't believe in the a 9/11 conspiracy is not here arguing that the official 9/11 report is bullet proof. The people here arguing against conspiracy theories-as far as I can tell- do not accept the 'official' story in its entirety rather they do not accept that there was a controlled demolition or that something aside from a passenger jet hit the pentagon.

As for this link... http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2012/02/29/cia-admits-using-msm-to-manipulate-the-usa-video/ I couldn't find anything there where the Bush admin admitted to using shills. Additionally, that is a pretty poor source given that it is a blog that contains quotes taken out of context that are without primary sources. I'm not trying to argue that the CIA hasn't tried to manipulate the dissemination about information but if you are going to make the claim that the government is covertly trying to effect the debate on 9/11 you haven't provided any evidence to support that assertion. You really need to critically analyze the quality of evidence and what conclusions you can reasonable draw from it. Critical thinking skills are a must dude.

Ask yourself, is the reason that 9/11 conspiracy theories haven't gotten published in mainstream news publications and scientific journal because the gov't controls all those media sources or because the evidence to support such theories totally insubstantial and insufficient?

 

You assault any information that could possibly ever be presented in deference to the "official" story. Bush didn't use the term "shill". He said something like "not tolerating outrageous conspiracy theories" and something to the effect of engaging in disinformation to discredit the sources (or some such). You can claim he didn't say any such thing but I know what I saw and heard (in context). Shills exist and are commonplace today in an attempt, as I said, to discredit any information that's counter to what is presented "officially".

The MSM doesn't report on 911 PRIMARILY because of the implications and what the disruption of people knowing the truth and the distrust it would cause in anything "official". Additionally, they DO have to deal with the government in the ways of funding, regulatory issues, and the like. They're pretty much "told" what to report or not report.

I DO think critically Sir...I only go to extremes here because honest, decent discussion isn't possible.

 

Is that an assumption or do you have any evidence to support that? The publication of the watergate breakin, the pentagon papers, the iran-contra affair, the tuskegee experiment etc etc etc seem to contradict your notion that the press is 'told' what to report.

Why do all of the articles published both domestically and abroad in the science and engineering journals of record contradict the CD hypothesis?

 

On various sites I have encountered people who present very sophisticated arguments which contain some subtle but dumb flaw once you figure out the flaw. And they do this repeatedly and I am forced to wonder how can they be so smart and so dumb. So I suspect it is deliberate to confuse other people.

But I NEVER accuse anyone of being a shill. It cannot be proven so it only makes the accuser look stupid and paranoid. So besides that I don't see what there is to say about it.

psik

 

See...that's the lie. They don't ALL contradict the hypothesis. That's part of what the disinformation sources want to see propagated. The public generally chooses to believe anything counter to what they're told "officially", partly because they've been trained (over the years) to do so..partly because they're lazy and partly because they don't really want to know what "really happened" due to the many grave implications if would infer. Those are just a few of the reasons people choose to believe what they do. Hell, we're still arguing over whether JFK was a conspiracy some 50 years later (except 50 years later is a bit too late to do anything about it).
Bottom line is information is very carefully controlled in this country...today more than ever, and people are basically too lazy to look, and the MSM is a sad joke in that they don't report on anything of substance these days unless it's insignificant in the overall scheme of things that truly matter. Basically the rich and powerful have successfully purchased all of our souls.

 

Name an instance where I specifically name an individual as a shill please, and I'll stand corrected.

 

The thing that is alarming to me is when credible information is presented to someone and they refuse, for some reason, to acknowledge the information being presented. Furthermore, something I've recently experiened with leftysergeant, is the complete shutdown when asked a question. Then there is the dodging, downplaying, and other symptoms that are just weird for posters that have prolonged exposure to forums like this.

 

I'm lying??? Thats a pretty bold accusation. Can you cite an article from a scientific journal of record that supports the CD hypothesis? I sure haven't found any.

 

You probably could stand to expand your resources to include ones that aren't "official" narratives or who are influenced by "official" parameters. Anything "official", by default, cannot be objective for obvious reasons. I suggest looking harder. There's plenty out there. I'd site them for you but, there would be no point as you'd simply attempt to discredit it and obfuscate the content, and concede nothing.

 

So, if I understand this correctly, you're saying that he said he used shills, by not saying he used shills at all. Also, according to your other posts we can't use any information that comes from reputable scientific journals because they are "official". Anything "official" is automatically handwaved away (ala Jango and government documentation) because it is influenced by the government.

Alright, got it. Just making sure that this made sense in someone's head, and I'm glad it's not mine.

 

- #28 (This thread)

- #212 (Thread: How a coverup works)

Sorry, I forgot to take down the others ones I found so these are the 2 I remembered and pulled up. The rest would be over kill. The first instance is in response to a person. The second is also in reply to an individual in regards to a person. You are saying that they are a paid disinformation specialist.

I do apologize for not collecting them all, as I stopped caring quickly after it was stated. However, whether it's 2 or twenty it goes to show that you are obviously lying. I'll expect a retraction of your statement and an apology issued. Thanks.

 

Another, just to drive it home:

That was a direct response to Hannibal saying:

 

More

That is addressing all the posters on the forums that you are accusing of being shills. Still waiting.

Sorry, source. If you can move the goalposts on that one, the thread in my source is chalked full of you calling people shills. You can see it in all sorts of ways. Directly accusing, directly questioning, or just saying it repeatedly.

 

If you are going to call me a liar you should back it up with something more than hyperbole and rhetoric. Scientific studies of the mechanisms of collapse are not 'official'. Such studies are independat investigations which subject empirical information to the scientific method and produce discourse containing peer reviewed methodologies, datasets, results and conclusions. These studies have been undertaken by scientists and engineers in the US, Europe and China. To my knowledge, Not a single study published in an academic or scientific study of record explicitly or even implicitly corroborates the CD hypothesis.

You claim that there are plenty of scientific papers from objective journals that support the CD hypothesis yet you havent been able to cite one. The largest international association of Civil Engineers- the ASCE- which publishes dozens of journals and thousands of scientific papers annually has printed dozens of papers on the wtc towers. These publication unequivocally support the hypothesis that the impact from the planes and fires alone brought down the towers. The allegation that scores of independant scientists and engineers who have researched, reviewed and published papers on the wtc towers are knowingly fabricating and manipulating data to publish deceptive papers that conceal a vast gov't conspiracy is both baseless and assinign. It is you who needs to expand the scope of your reference material as your dismissal of credible, objective and independant scientific periodicals is demonstrative of extreme bias and subjective and often circular reasoning.

 

Perfect...
Show me where I said "Hannibal is a shill".
You inferred it. I didn't say it. Thanks.

- - - Updated - - -

Neither post accuses anyone specifically of being a shill. Thanks again.

 

In response to "you truthers". Just throwing their own words and ideology back at them. Non specific, once again.

 

Hahaha do you say the persons name in a real life conversation? You were replying to him in a conversation. There was no one else posting, and you were directly commenting to him. I LOVE it when you guys move the goalposts, it's so much fun.

How about the massive post where you directed your comments at the people? I'm still waiting, or do you have a goalpost move for that one too. Cause I found those, and in this threads you call people out by name. Want me to go back?

"Hi, Billy, how are you?"
"Good, Jim, you?"
"Well, Billy, I'm a little down trodden."
"I'm sorry, Jim, is there anything I can do to help?"
"No, Billy, I think I'll be ok"
"Alright, Jim, let me know."

For stupid, please.