Have you noticed the double standard by supposedly serious debaters on here.

The Likes of Noam Chomskey and John Pilger are dismissed as loonies and cut and paste crap is allowed to pass as serious content.

Yes Noam Chomsky one of the finest minds of our age they dismiss him like he is some type of self proclaimed engineer or something.

Avram Noam Chomsky (/ˈnoʊm ˈtʃɒmski/; born December 7, 1928) is an American linguist, philosopher,[5][6] cognitive scientist, historian, and activist. He is an Institute Professor and Professor (Emeritus) in the Department of Linguistics & Philosophy at MIT, where he has worked for over 50 years.[7] Chomsky has been described as the "father of modern linguistics"[8][9][10] and a major figure of analytic philosophy.[5] His work has influenced fields such as computer science, mathematics, and psychology.[11][12]

Chomsky is credited as the creator or co-creator of the Chomsky hierarchy, the universal grammar theory, and the Chomsky–Schützenberger theorem.

Ideologically identifying with anarcho-syndicalism and libertarian socialism, Chomsky is known for his critiques of U.S. foreign policy[13] and contemporary capitalism,[14] and he has been described as a prominent cultural figure.[15] His media criticism has included Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (1988), co-written with Edward S. Herman, an analysis articulating the propaganda model theory for examining the media.

According to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index in 1992, Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any other living scholar from 1980 to 1992, and was the eighth most cited source overall.[16][17][18][19] Chomsky is the author of over 100 books.[20]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky

I don't dismiss him, I call him what he is...A radical left-wing activist and self appointed political anayist who writes books criticizing anything and everything he disagrees with.....

Coomsky's take on education..."A system of imposed ignorance."

His take on the internet..."An elite organization."

Excellent post Leigh!

I think there is another version of the conspiracy theorist called the Internet Troll. These IT people don't really care about the CT at all. To them, I think it is just about getting attention. The more outlandish the CT, the more response and therefore the more attention. The fact that their provocative stands makes them look like complete fools doesn't matter as they are shielded by the internet.

A true conspiracy theorist believes his/her line. A troll doesn't know anything or even care. It is just about getting a response.

TY Joe!...As usual, your post is right on the money!

Propaganda Techniques

Edward Filene helped establish the Institute of Propaganda Analysis in 1937 to educate the American public about the nature of propaganda and how to recognize propaganda techniques. Filene and his colleagues identified the seven most common "tricks of the trade" used by successful propagandists (Marlin 102-106: Propaganda Critic: Introduction). These seven techniques are called:

Name Calling
Glittering Generalities
Transfer
Testimonial
Plain Folks
Card Stacking
Band Wagon

These techniques are designed to fool us because the appeal to our emotions rather than to our reason.The techniques identified by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis are further refined by Aaron Delwich in his website, Propaganda where he "discusses various propaganda techniques, provides contemporary examples of their use, and proposes strategies of mental self-defense." By pointing out these techniques, we hope to join with others who have written on this topic to create awareness and encourage serious consideration of the influence of contemporary propaganda directed at us through the various media and suggest ways to guard against its influence on our lives.

Name Calling: Propagandists use this technique to create fear and arouse prejudice by using negative words (bad names) to create an unfavorable opinion or hatred against a group, beliefs, ideas or institutions they would have us denounce. This method calls for a conclusion without examining the evidence. Name Calling is used as a substitute for arguing the merits of an idea, belief, or proposal. It is often employed using sarcasm and ridicule in political cartoons and writing. When confronted with this technique the Institute for Propaganda Analysis suggests we ask ourselves the following questions: What does the name mean? Is there a real connection between the idea and the name being used? What are the merits of the idea if I leave the name out of consideration? When examining this technique try to separate your feelings about the name and the actual idea or proposal (Propaganda Critic: Common Techniques 1).


Glittering Generalities: Propagandists employ vague, sweeping statements (often slogans or simple catchphrases) using language associated with values and beliefs deeply held by the audience without providing supporting information or reason. They appeal to such notions as honor, glory, love of country, desire for peace, freedom, and family values. The words and phrases are vague and suggest different things to different people but the implication is always favorable. It cannot be proved true or false because it really says little or nothing at all. The Institute of Propaganda Analysis suggests a number of questions we should ask ourselves if we are confronted with this technique: What do the slogans or phrases really mean? Is there a legitimate connection between the idea being discussed and the true meaning of the slogan or phrase being used? What are the merits of the idea itself if it is separated from the slogans or phrases?

Transfer: Transfer is a technique used to carry over the authority and approval of something we respect and revere to something the propagandist would have us accept. Propagandists often employ symbols (e.g., waving the flag) to stir our emotions and win our approval. The Institute for Propaganda Analysis suggests we ask ourselves these questions when confronted with this technique. What is the speaker trying to pitch? What is the meaning of the thing the propagandist is trying to impart? Is there a legitimate connection between the suggestion made by the propagandist and the person or product? Is there merit in the proposal by itself? When confronted with this technique, question the merits of the idea or proposal independently of the convictions about other persons, ideas, or proposals.


Testimonial: Propagandists use this technique to associate a respected person or someone with experience to endorse a product or cause by giving it their stamp of approval hoping that the intended audience will follow their example. The Institute for Propaganda Analysis suggests we ask ourselves the following question when confronted with this technique. Who is quoted in the testimonial? Why should we regard this person as an expert or trust their testimony? Is there merit to the idea or product without the testimony? You can guard yourself against this technique by demonstrating that the person giving the testimonial is not a recognized authority, prove they have an agenda or vested interest, or show there is disagreement by other experts.

Plain Folks: Propagandists use this approach to convince the audience that the spokesperson is from humble origins, someone they can trust and who has their interests at heart. Propagandists have the speaker use ordinary language and mannerisms to reach the audience and identify with their point of view. The Institute for Propaganda Analysis suggests we ask ourselves the following questions before deciding on any issue when confronted with this technique. Is the person credible and trustworthy when they are removed from the situation being discussed? Is the person trying to cover up anything? What are the facts of the situation? When confronted with this type of propaganda consider the ideas and proposals separately from the personality of the presenter.


Bandwagon: Propagandists use this technique to persuade the audience to follow the crowd. This device creates the impression of widespread support. It reinforces the human desire to be on the winning side. It also plays on feelings of loneliness and isolation. Propagandists use this technique to convince people not already on the bandwagon to join in a mass movement while simultaneously reassuring that those on or partially on should stay aboard. Bandwagon propaganda has taken on a new twist. Propagandists are now trying to convince the target audience that if they don't join in they will be left out. The implication is that if you don't jump on the bandwagon the parade will pass you by. While this is contrary to the other method, it has the same effect: getting the audience to join in with the crowd. The Institute of Propaganda Analysis suggests we ask ourselves the following questions when confronted with this technique. What is the propagandist's program? What is the evidence for and against the program? Even though others are supporting it, why should I? As with most propaganda techniques, getting more information is the best defense. When confronted with Bandwagon propaganda, consider the pros and cons before joining in.


Card Stacking: Propagandist uses this technique to make the best case possible for his side and the worst for the opposing viewpoint by carefully using only those facts that support his or her side of the argument while attempting to lead the audience into accepting the facts as a conclusion. In other words, the propagandist stacks the cards against the truth. Card stacking is the most difficult technique to detect because it does not provide all of the information necessary for the audience to make an informed decision. The audience must decide what is missing. The Institute for Propaganda Analysis suggests we ask ourselves the following question when confronted with this technique: Are facts being distorted or omitted? What other arguments exist to support these assertions? As with any other propaganda technique, the best defense against Card Stacking is to get as much information that is possible before making a decision.

I didn't realize this threads topic was propaganda..

Because that is what they are!

are you ever come up with physical Facts to underpin your Case?

Well The same goes for Leigh's post about "conspiracy theorists."

Yep,and a serious Conspiracy-Theorist to Boot!
So,you say ,overlook his Bull,because he is "brilliant" in his Field?
Lenin looks like a proponent of the Far Right compared to Noam!

Nope,that was on the Button,and apparently it stung!

The title of the thread is "9-11: A Conspiracy Theory"

Based on that, discussing conspiracy theorists is hardly off topic..

Name Calling

nope,assessing Chomsky!
If I were to call him Names,you'd know!

Attacking the messenger is not discussing the topic with is specifically the 9/11 conspiracy theory(s).

I guess that includes the official government theory, which is also a conspiracy theory.

you're reaching bad now!
actually we are just simply saying,and proving that there couldn't have been any Explosives involved,for reason of several Technical Facts we have proven too,while you all used dark Innuendo about "The Company",CIA,Illuminati and Whatever!
KAOS had a vital part in that Conspiracy as well!
The Conspiracy that Never Was!

The government itself has not proven anything, so why would you think that you have? They still use terms like, "probable" and "may have" in their reports.

Math derived and fabricated with computer simulations is not proof. They are assertions. They have no proof or evidence concerning the length of the fires or the temperatures of the fires. All they have are assertions.

So, no, you don't have "proof." If you do, you might want to share it with the government cause they don't even have any proof.