My new blog - "9/11 Truth Burnout"

[jules4truth]

Hi there,

This is Julian, one of the founders of TruthMove. I just started an unaffiliated blog called "9/11 Truth Burnout." Here's the basic summary.

"This is a blog for those like myself who support the discovery and promotion of 9/11 truth but who have lost interest, stopped participating, or are generally frustrated with the movement, due to intentional disruption, ineffective leadership, counter-productive strategy, partisanship, or the promotion of poorly founded speculation."

http://911truthburnout.blogspot.com

I'm trying my best to promote the site and let people who might be interested know about it. I'm really hoping that the blog will end up doing some good.

If you like where I'm going with it, spread the word. External links would really help a lot, as would constructive criticism.

Thanks.

[CJCRANE]

1. Hello Julian. Looks interesting!

Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[jules4truth]

5. Thanks.

Nice to feel welcome. I've been here before, but I had to learn how to deal with debunkers in a mature way before I returned.

[seemslikeadream]

2. Good to see you here Julian

:hi:

[jules4truth]

6. Cool. Sound like I'm familiar?

It's been a while since I was last on this forum. It's good to be back because I'm now better at arguing what I know and avoiding distraction.

[greyl]

19. I don't think you've read his blog carefully.

He identifies posting patterns like yours (conflating other outlandish and debunked issues) as detrimental to 9/11 Truth - as disinformation.

[William Seger]

29. Yeah, looks like he wants to be the Martin Luther of the Truth Reform Movement (n/t)

[NowHearThis]

3. Congratulations. Your 25 Rules of Disinformation should be

read by everyone interested in finding out the truth of what happened on 9/11 and other black operations.

[jules4truth]

4. No my work, but certainly a good reference. Thanks. n/c

[greyl]

7. Can you please briefly explain what the well founded documentary evidence of complicity is? nt

[jules4truth]

8. No

[greyl]

9. Ok, then take all the time you feel like sacrificing to explain it. nt

[jules4truth]

11. Not for you.

[greyl]

18. But but "well founded documentary evidence of complicity" can't be argued with.

I'm becoming more confident about my first impression that your blog is just more of the same ecumenical 9/11 Truth Industry bullshit.

[William Seger]

10. Hmmm....

Not even a link? Seems to me the whole thing should be a slam dunk if you actually had "well founded documentary evidence of complicity." Seems to me the critical failure of the "truth movement" was a failure to find enough truth to even hold itself together -- no coherency or consistency at all after you get past the claims of "complicity."

But that's just me. Carry on.

[jules4truth]

12. Adding you to the list

As I said above, I've been here before. I moved on when I was spending too much time arguing with debunkers. Now I know better and won't be responding to anyone here for that purpose. Might as well start ignoring me cause I'm ignoring you.

[William Seger]

15. Suit yourself

... and thanks for the suggestion, but nope, I won't be ignoring you if you make unsubstantiated claims (e.g. having "well founded documentary evidence of complicity" -- where have you been keeping that hidden?). I really don't care what you buy, but if you come here on a public forum trying to resell it, I think I'll exercise my right to comment on its worth, whether or not you care to respond. If you just wanna preach your Truthism, not engage in discussion, well, you've already got your blog.

[SDuderstadt]

16. are you saying you only want to talk to people...

who agree with you? how does one arrive at the truth without engaging the other side?

[William Seger]

20. I think it's called "revealed truth"

... but I'm not too hip on theology.

[Bolo Boffin]

21. No, just a calmer, gentler JAQing off

Tantric Truth.

[NowHearThis]

80. What's up with all those sexual conotations in your posts?

Seems a little odd.

[SDuderstadt]

81. Why? Are you getting turned on? n/t

[NowHearThis]

85. Are you asking on YOUR behalf or did he tell you to ask?

nt

[SDuderstadt]

86. No, I'm asking on YOUR behalf....

you strike me as sexually repressed.

[NowHearThis]

87. Is that an example of you being guilty by association?

Or is simply one of your special interests?

[SDuderstadt]

88. No, it's an example of YOU...

being guilty by association. And, no, I don't want to hear about YOUR special interests. What I'd love to hear is your refutation of the direct eyewitnesses to the second plane striking the WTC. It would also be nice if you produced the schedule that you claim proves that AA77 was not even scheduled to fly on 9/11.

[NowHearThis]

89. Do ALL Untruthers pledge allegiance to the fine art of ...

using any means available in service to suppressing truth and hiding it by posting nonsense in order to tax the patience of truth seekers to the point of not even bothering to try and find the truth in here anymore? You must really be proud of yourself. Was it
hard for you to be convinced that what you are doing is the "right" thing, in defense of...well, the right words escape me, thank goodness.

[SDuderstadt]

90. I am actually not a "truth suppressor"....

I have only made it to "truth repressor", but I expect to be promoted any day. Maybe you could put in a good word for me.

[NowHearThis]

91. Certainly not a very good one, I agree.

You enjoy yourself. I have to get back to work. I don't get paid for posting here and no, I can't imagine that anyone would
pay you to do so either. Your ISP bills alone would eat up a large percentage of your wages.

In the meantime, ask some of your friends if they know of a better way to handle your inability to prove that FL 77 was a scheduled flight on 9/11/01 than how you've fumbled that little whopper so many times.

[SDuderstadt]

92. Dude....your silly little attempt to shift the burden of proof....

isn't working. You say that you have proof that AA77 wasn't scheduled to fly that day...where is your proof????

[NowHearThis]

93. I'll concede that I have no interest in digging up the proof I'm right...

but the simple fact of the matter is that:

1. Unless you've had a change of heart, you support the OCT.

2. According to the OCT, FL 77 crashed into the Pentagon.

Unfortunately,

A. In order for point 2 above to be true, there would have to have been a FL 77 on 9/11/01.

The problem is that there is no undoctored evidence proof that there was such a flight on that date.

Without such proof, there is no reason to believe in the truthfulness of the OCT.

[SDuderstadt]

94. dude...do you deny that the aa77 fdr...

was found at the pentagon? i submit that it''s not a lack of interest on your part to dig up the evidence that you're right. it's that the evidence doesn't exist and you keep pretending it does. if you can't locate a schedule proving your claim, how on earth did you draw the conclusion there was no aa77? why don't you call president obama and drop this bombshell on him? i'm certain he'll take your call.

[jules4truth]

23. An honest question recieves an answer.

Yes, I only want to talk to people here who are supportive of the movement. That leaves room for disagreement on specific facts and strategies. I will not be spending any time debating with people who are on this forum full time in order to undermine the movement. I've done that before and it leads to burnout, the subject of my blog.

Among other things my blog is about dealing with dubunkers in a healthy way. So I better have some kind of strategy jumping into this lions den. My strategy, which they very often can't stand is to completely ignore everything they say. And that's what I plan on doing.

I agree that you can't see the truth just looking at one side. And you know what? I've been doing this long enough to have heard just about every argument that a debunker will ever say to me. And what I've learned is that they aren't all about the facts. They are about the argument. People like Mark Roberts are simply really good at arguing. They have nearly every possible response ready to go. Might as well be arguing with a computer.

Now that doesn't mean that what they say is logical. Most often it's more clever than logical. You might call it deceptively illogical. And I'm done with it. It's boring and pointless as I'm not going to be deciding that the movement is a total sham.

I should add that I'm a lot more skeptical than many who participate in the movement. And for that reason I actually agree with many things that people like Mark Roberts have to say about the movement. But that doesn't mean that it's productive for us to communicate.

Hey everyone! You can't hurt my feelings, make me feel small, or shake my confidence that what I'm doing is a good thing. And if you try I will ignore you.

That being said, it would be just as boring only to talk to people who completely agreed with me. The point is that I can tell the difference, very easily at this point, between someone who disagrees and someone who's here just to disagree.

[greyl]

24. What is the "well founded documentary evidence of complicity"?

You think that's a dishonest question? Good grief. What if it was? Do you not think it's as important to spread that truth about 9/11 as it is to spread links to your blog?

[William Seger]

25. "People like Mark Roberts are simply really good at arguing."

Couldn't possibly be because he's right... nah.

> "Now that doesn't mean that what they say is logical. Most often it's more clever than logical. You might call it deceptively illogical."

That's a deceptively illogical argument. Deductive logic is usually considered to be either valid or invalid, and the standard way of determining which is by looking for fallacies. But for you...

> "It's boring and pointless as I'm not going to be deciding that the movement is a total sham."

... it's "pointless" since absolutely nothing can possibly convince you that you are wrong. Yep, such people have no use at all for logic.

> "The point is that I can tell the difference, very easily at this point, between someone who disagrees and someone who's here just to disagree."

That sorta sounds like "code talk." Can you tell the difference between people who actually care about what really happened on 9/11 and people who just want others to believe what they believe, whether or not it's the truth?

[vincent_vega_lives]

65. Wow so your "mature" and 'healthy" way to deal with dissent

is to put your fingers in your ears and go "lalalalalalala"?

That is not only immature but also unhealthy and self-destructive.

[whatchamacallit]

40. Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha...

Good thing you set me straight in that other thread:rofl:

[greyl]

44. The thread where you ridiculed people for wanting to see evidence before forming belief?

Way to supply the chrome for the 9/11 Truth Industry.

[Fainter]

61. Yep, NIST Should've Tested 4 XPlosives&Jones' Nanothermite Tested More n/t

[Ghost in the Machine]

42. When the "other side" has proven themselves to be too ignorant too many times..

.. it's usually better NOT to engage them. Why engage people who have proven nothing but the fact that they engage in nuisance/distraction tactics?

[Bolo Boffin]

13. With so few posts and yet a claim to have been here before

You have created a second identity here. That makes this one a sock of a current member or of a tombstoned member.

Either way, enjoy your short stay here.

[jules4truth]

14. Oh yeah. You. You are definitely on the list. n/c

[William Seger]

17. Sheesh....

Why don't you just invite all the people who aren't on your list over to your place?

[Bolo Boffin]

22. What is this strange hynotic hold I have over people here?

It bewilders me.

[Ghost in the Machine]

27. We see the depth (shallowness) of your "logic" and "critical thinking" abilities in this post..

as well as your blatant disregard for the rules of this forum:

"Do not draw negative attention to the fact that someone is new, has a low post count, or recently became a member of Democratic Underground. Do not insinuate that because someone is new, they are a troll or disruptor."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html



"You have created a second identity here. That makes this one a sock of a current member or of a tombstoned member."

Why would it have to be a current member or a tombstoned member? I signed up here back in 2004 and posted for a while, then I got busy with real life and was away from here for almost a year and a half. I forgot what my user name was, as well as the email addy I used to sign up with, so I just created a new account. Does that make me a "sock puppet" or a "tombstoned member"? No, it doesn't... except for maybe in the fantasy world that you live in... you really need to get over yourself

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[greyl]

32. "I was booted off DU a couple years ago".

I think you should PM the mods and let them know so they can welcome you back.

[Ghost in the Machine]

33. Any time...

The ignore list is a wise decision for some, though I don't use it myself... gotta stay on top of some of the patently false information some of these guys try to push..

[SidDithers]

36. "truthmover" is still an active account...

used by someone named Jules, back in 2006.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=117224&mesg_id=117224

Sid

[greyl]

39. Just a coincidence, I'm sure. :) nt

[William Seger]

49. Wow, a Loose Change defender

Gimme that ol' time religion.

[greyl]

31. We see the lack of depth in your investigation & quickness to personalize.

Anyone can check the poster's profile and see that he just joined a few days ago.
I'd bet boloboffin took a moment to do that like I did.

[Ghost in the Machine]

34. Do you not understand plain, simple English?

Please inform me of what your native language is and I'll try to find a translator for you.

What part of

"Do not draw negative attention to the fact that someone is new, has a low post count, or recently became a member of Democratic Underground. Do not insinuate that because someone is new, they are a troll or disruptor."

did you NOT understand?

Who gives a fuck if you or bolo looked at his profile? Read the goddamned rules greyl... they apply to you and bolo just as much as they do to anyone else.. though that's questionable here sometimes...

Your reply was a great lesson in failure to comprehend what you read...

[greyl]

35. Lol. Why don't you care about the "well founded documentary evidence of complicity"?

Nobody was suspicious about him because he was new. He admitted to being a member here before. In plain English.

[Ghost in the Machine]

37. Why are you trying to change the subject?

"Lol. Why don't you care about the "well founded documentary evidence of complicity"?

Because that's not what I responded to... what I responded to was bolo saying "With so few posts and yet a claim to have been here before
You have created a second identity here. That makes this one a sock of a current member or of a tombstoned member." I showed that that was an illogical statement, didn't I?


"Nobody was suspicious about him because he was new."

Bullshit...

"He admitted to being a member here before."

So did I, and explained the circumstances of that... and he didn't admit to being "booted off of here" until after I made my post...

Do you have a problem following the rules here? Do you think they're for other people, but don't apply to you?

[greyl]

38. That's pathetic. You don't want the subject to be well founded documentary evidence of complicity?

Besides, I didn't change the subject, and I can handle more than one current subject at a time in a post.

Looks like, with your assistance, your buddy has achieved an incredibly productive thread.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[William Seger]

43. Well, you seem to think...

... that the rules don't apply to jules4truth. So much for the moral high ground.

And yes, jules4truth is the one who first mentioned being a previous member. And yes, the rule is clearly intended to mean that you shouldn't use someones low post count to imply they don't have "standing" to comment on equal footing -- which was clearly not the point Bolo was making.

If you'd get off that Don Quixote horse, you'd have a much easier time of it here.

[Ghost in the Machine]

45. More poor comprehension from William Seger.. how surprising...

"And yes, the rule is clearly intended to mean that you shouldn't use someones low post count to imply they don't have "standing" to comment on equal footing -- which was clearly not the point Bolo was making."

No, the rule is cleary intended to mean that you don't mention someones low post count, period. Bolo was clearly drawing negative attention to his low post count.

"If you'd get off that Don Quixote horse, you'd have a much easier time of it here."

I'm not having a hard time here... I find it quite entertaining pointing out the idiocy of some the OCTer posts in here. Maybe if you concentrated on comprehension, quit being so full of yourself and stuffed a sock in it once in a while instead of babbling about things you clearly don't understand, you'd have an easier time here...

Just sayin'....

[William Seger]

46. Probably, it was Bolo use of a compound condition confused you

"With so few posts and yet a claim to have been here before"

See, why would his post count be so low if he's been here before? Get it?

So, answer the question, Ghost: Do the rules apply to jules4truth or not? C'mon, it's a simple question. Yes or no?

[Ghost in the Machine]

48. Poor William... *sigh*

"With so few posts and yet a claim to have been here before" = negative attention/connotation...

"See, why would his post count be so low if he's been here before? Get it?"

:rofl: Jeez William, are that dense? I saw a poster in GD earlier who had 9 posts... but has been a member for over a year... I've seen that *many* times. Have you ever told someone "welcome to DU" and have them respond with "thanks, but I'm not new, I've been here longer than you"? I have... and I've seen it dozens of times with other members. Get it??

"So, answer the question, Ghost: Do the rules apply to jules4truth or not? C'mon, it's a simple question. Yes or no?"

Yes, William... the rules apply to everyone.

However, as I clearly explained, some people go away for a while, on their own accord, then come back and sign up again because they either don't remember their old username or password, and don't remember, or have access to, the old email account they used to sign up with before.

You do understand what a sock puppet is, don't you? That would be creating a new account while still posting on your old account. As Sid pointed out, "truthmover" is still an active account, as far as the user wasn't tombstoned, but it's not being actively *used*... therefore the new account isn't a sock puppet... how about we just agree to let the mods and/or admins decide on that...

[William Seger]

51. Please tell me you're not as stupid as that reply makes you look

Jeez Ghost, are that dense? Can you seriously not separate the actual issues from your failed attack on Bolo? :rofl:

But just so this isn't too much like a typical Ghost response: Concerning the actual issue, it appears that jules4truth did not technically violate the rules -- he just thought he was. On the other hand, you claim that Bolo technically violated the rules, even though what he was actually doing was raising a pertinent rules issue.

So, an ethical question for the mighty brain of Ghost: Who is more in the right?

[Ghost in the Machine]

52. You're the one who looks stupid here, William (again)...

Pointing out rules is an "attack" now? :rofl:

"But just so this isn't too much like a typical Ghost response: Concerning the actual issue, it appears that jules4truth did not technically violate the rules -- he just thought he was."

Please point out where jules4truth stated that he thought he was violating the rules...


"On the other hand, you claim that Bolo technically violated the rules, even though what he was actually doing was raising a pertinent rules issue."

Wrong again, William (as usual): I claimed bolo "blatantly" violated the rules, and that's a fact. Read his words again, William.. but try reading for comprehension this time around:

Bolo Boffin (1000+ posts) Mon Apr-27-09 01:56 AM
Response to Original message
13. With so few posts and yet a claim to have been here before
You have created a second identity here. That makes this one a sock of a current member or of a tombstoned member.

Either way, enjoy your short stay here.

At the time bobo posted his response, jules4truth hadn't said that he was "booted from here before", therefore bolo was merely speculating, or assuming, that he was either a sock puppet or a formerly tombstoned member... neither of which are true, are they??

"So, an ethical question for the mighty brain of Ghost: Who is more in the right?"

That's easy... jules4truth is more right. He admitted right up front that he had been here before. Bolo made the assumption that he was a sock puppet or a formerly tombstoned member... and he was WRONG. Just like you are....

It's not my problem that you can't comprehend simple sentences in plain English, nor is it my problem that you can't simply admit you were wrong. I personally think that's some kind of character flaw... I can admit it if I'm wrong about something. Why can't you?

Back you go into the dust bin of irrelavancy, William... you seem to enjoy wallowing there...

[William Seger]

53. LOL, these insights into your little world of delusion are facinating

... but you really ought to work on that reading comprehension thing. Or maybe it doesn't matter to you since the mighty brain of Ghost always manages to invent a reality where Ghost makes his adversaries look foolish. You're the hero of your own Marvel comic, Ghost.
:rofl:

But yes, about the only thing I've ever seen you do here is jump on your little Don Quixote horse and ride to the defense of a fellow "truther." Fortunately for jules4truth, a technicality allowed him to narrowly avoid the lance in the back that occasionally results. If jules4truth had been banned rather than suspended, your little "rules is rules" attack woulda backfired, huh. And judging by the bluster that always accompanies your worst misadventures, I think there was a brief period where you realized that, huh.
:rofl:

Admit when I'm wrong? Sure I do, Ghost -- but as you know, that doesn't happen very often. :rofl:

Now, go "polish your lance" (if you still have that cute little smiley). :rofl:

[jules4truth]

47. Amazing!! :? - About my accounts

From your responses I can tell that people are being paranoid and childish.

To reiterate, for those with their panties in a bundle and for the mods as well. I have no intention of violating the forum guidelines. When I registered recently I thought that I had no active account. I've been informed that my old account under "truthmover" is still active. (For those paying attention on this thread that means that I was already allowed to return after having been blocked.) I do not know the password to that account and have no intention of using it unless instructed otherwise.

[Ghost in the Machine]

50. I understand about your accounts...

I'm trying to make others understand as well...

Apparently you weren't tombstoned.. maybe a suspension for a week? They've done that with others here before...


"I do not know the password to that account and have no intention of using it unless instructed otherwise."

I'm not a moderator or admin, but I think that's the best course of action to take... let them decide... maybe they can recover your password for you. As long as you're not actively using the old account, I don't see why it would be a problem... but again, I'm not a mod or admin here...

Welcome back to DU...


Peace,

Ghost

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

60. Here, let me make it easy for you.

:hi:

[SidDithers]

54. Perhaps we'll see you as truthmover again?...

'cause jules4truth sleeps with the fishes.

Sid

[SidDithers]

28. We can have fun playing "guess the tombstone"...

but there's just so damn many granite-eating truthers to choose from.

Sid

[seemslikeadream]

55. oh there's few from your side too Sid remember the Pea?

I could go on and on but I'll leave it at that

[Bolo Boffin]

56. I bet we could name five for every one you could, seems

Dulce Decorum, how we weep for thee.

[greyl]

59. 15 for every 1, easy.

I still want to know about the well founded documentary evidence of complicity.

[AZCat]

64. No chance of that happening now.

Poor jules4truth sleeps with the virtual fishes.

[AZCat]

63. Remember her obsession with concrete?

And her bizarre posts. What's with CTers and vague, rambling posts?

[AZCat]

62. No, please - enlighten us.

I'd love to see your list.

[jules4truth]

26. Ignore list is great!!!

I though I was going to have be disciplined in here to avoid getting into it with people I don't want to talk to, but I'd forgotten about the Ignore list. Works great!!

I'm still accepting private messages from the people I'm ignoring.

[Woody Box]

58. Jim Hoffman? Not really a credible spokesman for 9/11 truth

Jim Hoffman has a history of attacking everyone within the movement who doesn't share his specific theory of 9/11. He has attacked Dylan Avery/Loose Change, he has attacked Craig Ranke&Aldo Marquis/CIT, he has attacked the pilots, he has attacked my research, and now he likes to attack Kevin Barrett.

I don't know what you mean by skipping the "big tent" approach. Does that mean that Operation Northwoods, i.e. the idea that the original planes were substituded by drones, ought to be anathema? Because Operation Northwoods seems to be the common denominator for all the people attacked by Hoffman.

And who are the wise men whose job is to narrow down the "big tent"?

[truedelphi]

66. I will check it out.

Don't post much on this forum because it has too many people that attack - would rather post somewhere people are more on the same page. Some of the people who are on the attack would say it was not MIHOP even if Cheney released a full statement with videos of how he was behind it.

[Bolo Boffin]

67. "even if Cheney released a full statement with videos of how he was behind it."

Are you kidding? Actual evidence he was involved? Of course I would change my mind! How silly a claim you make there.

[truedelphi]

69. No you wouldn't.

You'd find some way to say that the video of Cheney saying that was not real, or some other such rubbish.

It would come down to this - unless Cheney personally met with you and personally told you that it was him, you would discount it.

And I don't know if you are a shill, but my problem with you is that you are shrill.

[Bolo Boffin]

70. Don't you fucking ever tell me what I will and will not do.

Especially when I just SAID what I would do. Got that?

[Ghost in the Machine]

71. *Rawrrrr*

You're such a brute!

[greyl]

72. Well founded documentary evidence of complicity!

Brute me up!

[Ghost in the Machine]

73. The Psychedelic Pterodactyl Flies at Midnight!!

Unleash your inner brute, greyl! :brutus beefcake smilie:

:hi:


Peace,

Ghost

[NowHearThis]

74. Shrill people lack confidence in their position. Being shrill...

is a psychological defense mechanism to mask one's fear of being wrong or knowing it.

[Bolo Boffin]

75. If you had any facts to back up any of your fantasies, you would be producing them

instead of continuing these idiotic personal attacks. The fastest way to shut me up is to produce facts. You will never shut me up by producing fantasy after fantasy or by questioning my motivations for anything I do. You will never do it. It betrays the utter weakness of your position that you can't produce facts but only attacks on me to "support" your fantasies.

[SDuderstadt]

76. now we know why...

you're shrill, although i already suspected as much.

[truedelphi]

77. Ever notice that no matter how many thousands of posts that

SDuderstadt and Bolo Boffin have created, not once have any of their posts occurred at the same time...

Hmm, could be they are one and the same?

[SDuderstadt]

78. well, there's some impeccable thinking...

isn't this kind of a waste of time? i think there a lot of posters whom i've never posted at the same time as, but it's a pretty safe bet i'm not them either. oh, wait a minute...you're serious, aren't you...

[truedelphi]

84. I think I was joking, but

Ya never know.

[NowHearThis]

79. I don't know about that, but "birds of a feather"? For sure. EOM

nt

[SDuderstadt]

82. "Truther Logic"...

it's really important to determine if Bolo and SDuderstadt are the same person.

[SDuderstadt]

68. More bullshit....

If Cheney did such a thing, I would immediately change my mind.

[SDuderstadt]

83. If you can stil hear me...

you might want to consider renaming your blog "9/11 Truth Flameout".