Cognitive Infiltration

[John Cotter]

11 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Oh my. My statement about Tink was that he was widely respected not that he was always right. Your response was essentially a non-sequitur. You pointed out that you disagreed with something he said and did and made out that therefore I was wrong and that he wasn't really respected. This makes no sense. I have been a part of the research community as it is for roughly 20 years now. You are not a member of that community. And you don't know Tink. So you are in no position to claim how much or how little respect there is for him within the community, and you haven't demonstrated the knowledge of the history of the case to comment on how respected he is outside the community. In fact, you demonstrated that Tink, unique to the JFK research community, has a public relationship with a prominent award-winning film-maker who isn't named Oliver Stone. So you actually suggested the exact opposite of what you were claiming. 

It would be like me claiming who you know to be the most respected fiddle player in Ireland is actually not respected, because I heard one song by him and thought it sucked. 

FYI, Tink wrote Six Seconds in Dallas, perhaps the most important book written on the JFK assassination. He was working for Life magazine--the most circulated and influential magazine in America--and helped push Life to call for a new investigation. He then went out on his own and wrote his book, which was nothing less than a bombshell. It was featured on the cover of prominent magazines, and pressured the Johnson Administration to create a secret panel to shut down the "junk" in his book. This led to one of the major twists in the history of the medical evidence. Years later, after a distinguished career as a philosophy professor, private eye, and author, he returned to the case, both online, at this and other forums, where he successfully dismantled many of the then popular arguments for Z-film alteration, and at conferences, where he updated his ideas about the case. 

As stated, he is one of the most respected men to write on the case, and appear at conferences. Most every researcher--from Wecht to Aguilar on down to people like myself and Matt Douthitt--thinks the world of the guy. He has discovered tons of stuff and his analysis is usually spot on. Like I said, it doesn't mean he is right about everything. But anyone who dismisses something he wrote without even reading it is probably making a mistake. 

 

 

 

Apparently, the propensity to commit logical fallacies is a criterion for membership of the “research community”.

In describing Josiah Thompson as “perhaps the most widely respected JFK researcher ever” and thus implying that that makes Thompson also an expert on 9/11, you were committing the “appeal to authority” fallacy.

One doesn’t have to be a member of any community to identify and comment on a strawman fallacy and its implications – whether it’s committed by Tink Thompson, the Pope or anyone else.

Invoking your purported membership of the research community is not a logical rebuttal of my argument. It’s just another instance of the “appeal to authority” fallacy. In other words, you’re posting nonsense.

Thanks for the further validation.

[Pat Speer]

37 minutes ago, John Cotter said:

Apparently, the propensity to commit logical fallacies is a criterion for membership of the “research community”.

In describing Josiah Thompson as “perhaps the most widely respected JFK researcher ever” and thus implying that that makes Thompson also an expert on 9/11, you were committing the “appeal to authority” fallacy.

One doesn’t have to be a member of any community to identify and comment on a strawman fallacy and its implications – whether it’s committed by Tink Thompson, the Pope or anyone else.

Invoking your purported membership of the research community is not a logical rebuttal of my argument. It’s just another instance of the “appeal to authority” fallacy. In other words, you’re posting nonsense.

Thanks for the further validation.

Nope. I was pointing out that since this is a JFK forum, and since Tink is so widely regarded, that someone sincerely interested in 9/11 might--my God--want to check out what he wrote, in a professional capacity, after looking into the collapse of WTC 7.  

As pointed out by Matthew, I have publicly disagreed with Tink on a number of issues, so your "argument from authority" is incorrect, as I don't hold him or any other veteran of this stuff to be an irrefutable expert. There is probably no one on this forum, if not all research-land, as willing to challenge the status quo, as I. Most of my "discoveries" if you will, are discoveries that this or that expert was totally full of it on this or that. So the last thing I would want is for anyone to take my word on something. I was hoping instead that someone would express an interest in what Tink wrote and check it out and report back whether or not it still holds water or whether there have been subsequent discoveries and analysis that make it obsolete. As it is, I'm not sure if Tink's paper is even online anymore. I reached out to a mutual friend to see if he could provide a link but have yet to hear back. 

Edited May 1, 2023 by Pat Speer

[John Cotter]

10 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Nope. I was pointing out that since this is a JFK forum, and since Tink is so widely regarded, that someone sincerely interested in 9/11 might--my God--want to check out what he wrote, in a professional capacity, after looking into the collapse of WTC 7.  

As pointed out by Matthew, I have publicly disagreed with Tink on a number of issues, so your "argument from authority" is incorrect, as I don't hold him or any other veteran of this stuff to be an irrefutable expert. There is probably no one on this forum, if not all research-land, as willing to challenge the status quo, as I. Most of my "discoveries" if you will, are discoveries that this or that expert was totally full of it on this or that. So the last thing I would want is for anyone to take my word on something. I was hoping instead that someone would express an interest in what Tink wrote and check it out and report back whether or not it still holds water or whether there have been subsequent discoveries and analysis that make it obsolete. As it is, I'm not sure if Tink's paper is even online anymore. I reached out to a mutual friend to see if he could provide a link but have yet to hear back. 

Fair enough, Pat. As might be inferred from what I've said about Tink Thompson, I have no intention of reading anything by him - on any subject.

[Micah Mileto]

On 4/30/2023 at 12:51 PM, Pat Speer said:

 

See this on the foreknowledge of 7's collapse: https://old.reddit.com/r/911truth/comments/6zcttx/of_course_wtc_7_fell_from_fires_the_firefighters/

Also,

In the current model of the official story on 7, the debris from WTC 1 didn't actually cause enough structural damage for it to be a large factor in the collapse, besides the starting of fires and breaking of windows. Office fires alone allegedly weakened the steel structure, but since we know there was functional intact fireproofing on these columns (unlike the Twin Towers), the government blamed low-heat thermal expansion of girders, rather than regular high-heat "weakening" of steel.

 

The demolition side of the argument also needs to demonstrate that such a demolition device is possible, one that shows big white explosions and breaks apart skyscraper columns despite not being nearly as loud as commercial explosives.

Edited May 1, 2023 by Micah Mileto

[Guest]

Its going on alright:

https://www.instagram.com/p/Crbg1NegxJ-/?igshid=ZWIzMWE5ZmU3Zg==

[W. Niederhut]

18 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

See this on the foreknowledge of 7's collapse: https://old.reddit.com/r/911truth/comments/6zcttx/of_course_wtc_7_fell_from_fires_the_firefighters/

Also,

In the current model of the official story on 7, the debris from WTC 1 didn't actually cause enough structural damage for it to be a large factor in the collapse, besides the starting of fires and breaking of windows. Office fires alone allegedly weakened the steel structure, but since we know there was functional intact fireproofing on these columns (unlike the Twin Towers), the government blamed low-heat thermal expansion of girders, rather than regular high-heat "weakening" of steel.

 

The demolition side of the argument also needs to demonstrate that such a demolition device is possible, one that shows big white explosions and breaks apart skyscraper columns despite not being nearly as loud as commercial explosives.

Geez... Study the film, Micah.

The 47 floor structure abruptly collapsed to the ground in a symmetrical zero resistance free fall.

Weakening of the building structures by office fires, at best, would have caused a partial, asymmetrical, step-wise collapse of some floors.

That's not what happened.

Do you, Pat Speer, and Kirk think you know more about skyscraper demolitions than Danny Jowenko?

It was an expert, pre-wired demolition.

[Guest]

Tucker on Redacted: 

“What actually happened with building 7?” 
 

He also references the JFKA just before this. He is talking about all these areas where you are not allowed to ask questions. 
 

38:00 minutes to the end. 
 

 

Edited May 1, 2023 by Chris Barnard

[Matthew Koch]

1 hour ago, Micah Mileto said:

See this on the foreknowledge of 7's collapse: https://old.reddit.com/r/911truth/comments/6zcttx/of_course_wtc_7_fell_from_fires_the_firefighters/

Also,

In the current model of the official story on 7, the debris from WTC 1 didn't actually cause enough structural damage for it to be a large factor in the collapse, besides the starting of fires and breaking of windows. Office fires alone allegedly weakened the steel structure, but since we know there was functional intact fireproofing on these columns (unlike the Twin Towers), the government blamed low-heat thermal expansion of girders, rather than regular high-heat "weakening" of steel.

 

The demolition side of the argument also needs to demonstrate that such a demolition device is possible, one that shows big white explosions and breaks apart skyscraper columns despite not being nearly as loud as commercial explosives.

Here you go Micah, this guy proved it's possible from his backyard. 

https://rumble.com/v2e4uqg-the-great-thermate-debate.html

 

[Leslie Sharp]

"I'm like a representative of the American Media now — speaking to an exile in Romania and welcoming him back into the brotherhood of journalists." — newly released video of Tucker Carlson discussing a forthcoming interview with self-avowed misogynist Andrew Tate. 

https://www.salon.com/2023/05/01/i-dont-want-to-be-a-slave-tucker-caught-trashing-fox-news-streaming-in-leaked-video/

 

ANALYSIS

Andrew Tate shows how fascists recruit online: Men fall victim to the insecurity-to-fascism pipeline

Young men’s dating woes attract them to online misogynists, who then convert them to authoritarianism

By AMANDA MARCOTTE, Aug 23, 2022

Across the English-speaking world, parents and teachers grew increasingly alarmed, hearing teenage boys and young men parroting Tate's woman-hating rhetoric. One teacher on Reddit last week complained about boys "saying dooky like 'women are inferior to men' 'women belong in the kitchen Ms____'.," and refusing "to read an article by a female author because 'women should only be housewives.'" . . .

 

He's been linked with a number of far-right American and British influencers, and not just because he loves Trump. He's been photographed dining with former Infowars anchor Paul Joseph Watson, who was recently recorded ranting about how he wishes "to wipe Jews off the face of the Earth." He's also associated with Jack Posobiec and Mike Cernovich, far-right trolls who pushed Pizzagate and similar hoaxes. 

But the 17-year-old kid who starts following Tate because he's titillated by TikTok videos espousing "edgelord" opinions about women doesn't know any of this.' 

 

 

Andrew Tate is back: These are his latest controversial and misogynistic tweets

He is causing offence on social media yet again.

"Avoid women who go to festivals," one tweet began. "They're either on some losers table whos feeding them cocaine or in a crowd of sweaty peasants because they're a sweaty peasant. . . .
 

On the same day, he shared a tweet which said: "If youre not gona listen to your man... what are you with him for? To argue?"

 

 

 

 

Edited May 2, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Sandy Larsen]

8 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 

 

Pat,

Is Tink Thompson an engineer or physicist?

If not, he is not qualified to debunk the controlled demolition theory.

 

[Matthew Koch]

4 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Pat,

Is Tink Thompson an engineer or physicist?

If not, he is not qualified to debunk the controlled demolition theory.

 

Watch this then, it's very rudimentary basic science that shows the official story isn't possible https://rumble.com/v2e8fns-911-mysteries-demolitions.html

[Sandy Larsen]

I think Michael Griffith makes a lot of sense when he points out that resorting to a controlled demolition doesn't make much sense. The added task of setting up the explosive devices/materials would add to the expense and make it much more likely that the perpetrators would get caught.

On the other hand, William, Michael, and others make the valid point that random fires and explosives cannot result in a symmetrical collapse of a building. If the building collapsed at all, it would have happened slowly, randomly, and asymmetrically.

The real mystery in the case, therefore, is why did the perpetrators bother to do the controlled demolition?

 

[Mark Ulrik]

8 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I think Michael Griffith makes a lot of sense when he points out that resorting to a controlled demolition doesn't make much sense. The added task of setting up the explosive devices/materials would add to the expense and make it much more likely that the perpetrators would get caught.

On the other hand, William, Michael, and others make the valid point that random fires and explosives cannot result in a symmetrical collapse of a building. If the building collapsed at all, it would have happened slowly, randomly, and asymmetrically.

The real mystery in the case, therefore, is why did the perpetrators bother to do the controlled demolition?

Why do a demolition at all? Wouldn't it be enough to damage the building beyond repair?

[Ron Ecker]

It was shock and awe, folks. And it worked. America couldn't wait to go conquer the Middle East just like the PNAC wanted. 

 

 

[Guest]

44 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

"I'm like a representative of the American Media now — speaking to an exile in Romania and welcoming him back into the brotherhood of journalists." — newly released video of Tucker Carlson discussing a forthcoming interview with self-avowed misogynist Andrew Tate. 

https://www.salon.com/2023/05/01/i-dont-want-to-be-a-slave-tucker-caught-trashing-fox-news-streaming-in-leaked-video/

 

ANALYSIS

Andrew Tate shows how fascists recruit online: Men fall victim to the insecurity-to-fascism pipeline

Young men’s dating woes attract them to online misogynists, who then convert them to authoritarianism

By AMANDA MARCOTTE, Aug 23, 2022

Across the English-speaking world, parents and teachers grew increasingly alarmed, hearing teenage boys and young men parroting Tate's woman-hating rhetoric. One teacher on Reddit last week complained about boys "saying dooky like 'women are inferior to men' 'women belong in the kitchen Ms____'.," and refusing "to read an article by a female author because 'women should only be housewives.'" . . .

 

He's been linked with a number of far-right American and British influencers, and not just because he loves Trump. He's been photographed dining with former Infowars anchor Paul Joseph Watson, who was recently recorded ranting about how he wishes "to wipe Jews off the face of the Earth." He's also associated with Jack Posobiec and Mike Cernovich, far-right trolls who pushed Pizzagate and similar hoaxes. 

But the 17-year-old kid who starts following Tate because he's titillated by TikTok videos espousing "edgelord" opinions about women doesn't know any of this.' 

 

 

Andrew Tate is back: These are his latest controversial and misogynistic tweets

He is causing offence on social media yet again.

"Avoid women who go to festivals," one tweet began. "They're either on some losers table whos feeding them cocaine or in a crowd of sweaty peasants because they're a sweaty peasant. . . .
 

On the same day, he shared a tweet which said: "If youre not gona listen to your man... what are you with him for? To argue?"

 

 

 

 

Firstly, thanks to William for posting this interesting thread which is getting lots of engagement. I find this post quite thought-provoking, Leslie. As you mention the most Googled man of 2022, Andrew Tate. Some friends, two of which who work in the field of psychology (one male, one female) and I sat last year and tried to understand why this ex-kickboxing champion, whose father worked for the CIA, had gained such popularity online and notoriety. We also discussed whether his characterisation in mainstream media was accurate. Why is he such a polarising character? 

Some may find Andrew Tate is archetypal nouveau riche, he brags, shows off, flouts his masculinity as a badge of honour and uses achieving wealth, and consuming what is grandiose as a high ideal. I do feel he is sexist and provocative, and I could certainly find some silly things he has said on the video, that have caused offence. I found a lot of it made me cringe. 

The conversation with friends went on for hours, and there was a very careful analysis, to better understand his popularity and revulsion. Given he had managed to be the most talked about man on the planet, was there a formula to this and what were the factors for his success? 

It occurred to all of us that you could not recruit such a following without a strategy and appeal. Tate has marketed a persona which is divisive in today's world but, it is also magnetic for a disenfranchised male youth. He has certainly infiltrated the consciousness of many people. Although at times his position seems conflicted there is one message above any other which resonates with men, and that is stoicism. This comes at a time when the traditional male role to provide, to be strong, to take on responsibility, where the highest ideal was to be a warrior, has now become almost extinct. Vast swathes of men have an identity crisis, as their role in life is undefined, and aimless, which feeds into an epidemic of mental health issues and things like self-harm, alcoholism, drug abuse and suicide. Lifestyles have changed dramatically, and even testosterone has dropped in men by around 60%. What Tate often promotes is that a man can be something, that he can achieve greatness, and that he should be strong, and resilient, and to strive for traditional stoic values.

Nobody really needs a Bugati or Lamborghini, however, I can see how that taps into the ancient wiring of man, showing his status within the tribe, and none of us can deny that women are not drawn like moths to a flame to status. Anybody who doubts that should perhaps understand why male rock stars have such a female following. We could look at actors, athletes or any number of fields to see the same phenomenon. Of course, there will always be exceptions. We could certainly have a long conversation as to what men are attracted to, biologically, personality-wise or look at any other variables. 

We would all say that sexism is rather unhelpful, regardless of who is guilty of it, but, I would argue that men having a purpose and reaching masculine maturity is very important in the world, if we are to have functional societies. We simply need competent men and women in the world. And conditions where each individual can be all they can be. We'd all want that for our children, whether they be male or female. 

Most of us here are becoming accustomed as to how MSM works and how it can mischaracterise people, how it as a mechanism can amplify details about a person, distorting reality, we see that with JFK's legacy, and many significant historical events. Truth no longer matters to most journalists, only agitation and what sells. Has MSM represented Tate accurately? Or, are they shaping our view of him? For me, the answer is; mostly mischaracterising, weaponising language, slurring, cancelling, and stigmatising. That is not to say that they are not correct in some cases. I certainly found videos and tweets that made me raise eyebrows. As always, I try to be open-minded, and to have balance. 

Here are some clips of what Andrew Tate has said which may explain the draw he has to a significant male audience, and lesser so, female audience:

Andrew Tate discusses the WEF and the strange invites he has received to private islands from wealthy elites:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CnzKt0bjdxC/

Here he talks about the fact you don't own your child anymore:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CqqbiMGMwu5/

He talks about aspirations as a youngster and wondered how he could afford a car:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CoQ4C-qgDbA/

He talks about the system being totally corrupt and forecasts that they will find a way to put him in jail or kill him:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CpuipwHOR3o/

He states that women are the most powerful force on the planet and explains the importance of finding a good woman:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CnlkiXrOeFK/

He states that the people doing the censoring are never the good guys. That they are weaponising virtue, and its always in the name of tyranny:
https://www.instagram.com/p/Cpz8my4Nz1B/

All the people in charge have ever done is cheat.
https://www.instagram.com/p/Cpr_5jxP-VN/

He talks about authority wanting to keep the population subdued:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CnunRdNOa5O/

He talks about the people running the world destroying the family unit.
https://www.instagram.com/p/Cm01zY2piUr/

He makes a scathing criticism of the pandemic:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CouUDkWDjMt/

He suggests that the state creates dependency and the ability to print money does this:
https://www.instagram.com/p/Co426HFgQC3/

He asks why they promote mental illness and indicates social conditioning:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CnmfMIiBNyB/

He encourages people to think for themselves and cites Socrates:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CnCWKMaqVnO/

He mentions programming:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CmHZqy1JaaB/

He claims we are living in a world where slowly ever one of our choices is being removed:
https://www.instagram.com/p/ClEjWOcDVV5/

He discusses censoring and shaping reality on Piers Morgan:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CkxEtRioWUN/

He talks about chess and what it teaches you:
https://www.instagram.com/p/Clb4X_1jjUW/

He makes a sensational claim about mental illness and cites his followers:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CjdLnQgjbYA/

He talks about belief:
https://www.instagram.com/p/ClWxgZfjvDP/

This is a pretty randomised set of links that I have lifted from Instagram doing a search. I believe it represents a wider perspective as to who he is and why he has such a following. 

My conclusion is; weighing up all of his flaws and strengths, he is mostly feeling the ire of MSM because of the following:
- He attacks the system, government, social conditioning, fractional reserve banking, quantitative easing and corruption.
- Promotes free thinking. 
- He promotes a more traditional culture where men and women have roles more akin to their evolutionary biology. 
- He has managed to be the most popular person on the internet, organically, despite all of the censorship, shadow-banning, cancelling and even jail. 
- He gloats about wealth, which creates tremendous resentment. 

I think a lot of this branches into a much wider discussion. What we can all agree on is this; he understands implicitly how to infiltrate the minds of the masses, and he openly points out the methods used by others to do this.