Should I be a little nicer to Truthers?

[1337m4n]

Well, I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.

I was thinking. On one hand, Truthers are human beings if nothing else. They think, they feel, and like anybody, they're incredibly stubborn. It's not even like I hate them or anything. It's just a kindergarten-style "they started it" sort of thing--people from their side showed hostility to me before I showed hostility to them, so I feel somehow justified in being highly callous--even cruel at times.

But on the other hand, we're talking about a group that has gained a degree of infamy for harassing people, making false accusations, spamming like crazy, disrespecting the victims...even making death threats. It's not the sort of thing you're inclined to respond to with "Well, to each his own good sir, but I must say, old chap, I must respectfully disagree":

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g67/mrben101/Monocle-man.gif

Some might say that some degree of hostility is warranted, but how much is too much?

In any case, I'd like to apologize to all the Truthers here (at least to the ones who AREN'T obvious trolls, I think you all know who but I won't name names) if you think I've gone...overboard.

[Good Lt]

I think stupidity and willful ignorance needs to be mocked, derided, scorned and debunked. Trooferism is, for lack of a better word, stupid.

It deserves what it gets. If the people come around and wake up, more power to 'em.

I look at it as tough love for our fellow man.

[X]

I'm more than willing to criticise the truth movement where it deserves it (starting with the name).

But when it comes to deliberate attacks and misrepresentations of individuals who have been largely civil in their discource (even if the talking-to-a-brick-wall thing does get frustrating), I see more value in being polite than in being unmannerly.


I realize this thread is a candidate for AAH, since it promises to be a slugfest.
But I felt it was worth making a case for civil discourse.

[DavidJames]

I think stupidity and willful ignorance needs to be mocked, derided, scorned and debunked. Trooferism is, for lack of a better word, stupid. I agree. This goes against my nature. In my everyday life, I give people the benefit of the doubt, I'm polite and dare I say politically correct. I will be silent rather then offend, I seek compromise rather then confrontation.

I can not, however, tolerate those that accuse people of murder without evidence. Even if those people are politicians I abhor. I hold a special amount of scorn for the CTists who feigns dignity and politeness. Especially if they get offended if someone is rude to them. Nothing sets me off like a CTists who will accuse someone of murder, but get offended if they perceive someone is rude to them.

[GregoryUrich]

The american public has been lied to and manipulated (http://askquestions911.wordpress.com/disturbing-facts/lies-and-manipulation/) by a despicable administration to serve the neo-con agenda prescribed by PNAC. Respect for human lives and the rights of individuals are clearly not part of that agenda. How deep do these lies and manipulation go? I think it is only responsible to ask questions and demand answers.

Top UN weapons inspector Hans Blix says that Iraq posed no threat and that the Iraq war (the war that Rumsfeld started pushing on Sept. 12, 2001) is about oil. The lives of our soldiers and 10s of thousands (if not 100s of thousands) of Iraq lives have been traded for the economic gains of a small group of people. Why would the lives of a few thousand american citizens matter to these people? In this context the suspicion of murder (or aiding and abetting) is a reasonable question that deserves exploration.

The truth movement may be mistaken regarding the controlled demolition of WTC1 and 2 but this hasn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Compared to the crimes of the Bush administration this pales in comparison. Clearly there are misguided people claiming no planes, space beams and mini-nukes but this is not majority of the truth movement. There is no indication that anyone has been held accountable for the failures of the government before and after 9/11. Instead the truth has been covered up, investigations have been obstructed and failures have been rewarded. This is what the truth movement is really about.

In short, this is a discussion forum where ideas are tried and tested. No one is served by derision and hostility on either side.

[leftysergeant]

I try to educate the educable. White Nationalists are, for the most part uneducable, largely by their own choices.

I will present my evidence to those who have bought into twooferism out of ignorance of the science or lack of real-world experience.

I have no great concern for the feelings of those who advocate for white nationalist positions. They have a rope in mind for my neck, if they get enough useful idiots to help them with their RaHoWa.

I figure my life is more important than their feelings.

[DC]

Well, I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.

I was thinking. On one hand, Truthers are human beings if nothing else. They think, they feel, and like anybody, they're incredibly stubborn. It's not even like I hate them or anything. It's just a kindergarten-style "they started it" sort of thing--people from their side showed hostility to me before I showed hostility to them, so I feel somehow justified in being highly callous--even cruel at times.

But on the other hand, we're talking about a group that has gained a degree of infamy for harassing people, making false accusations, spamming like crazy, disrespecting the victims...even making death threats. It's not the sort of thing you're inclined to respond to with "Well, to each his own good sir, but I must say, old chap, I must respectfully disagree":

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g67/mrben101/Monocle-man.gif

Some might say that some degree of hostility is warranted, but how much is too much?

In any case, I'd like to apologize to all the Truthers here (at least to the ones who AREN'T obvious trolls, I think you all know who but I won't name names) if you think I've gone...overboard.

criticism is good and helpfull. but what i witnessed here is far beyond that.

a place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking, in a friendly and lively way.

friendly and lively way i did not witness here.

[Architect]

criticism is good and helpfull.

No problem.

Try punctuation, you might like it and it'll make your posts more readable.

[Wildy]

Well usually when I have anything to do with "truthers" I am usually polite and only say derisive things when they have derided me a few too many times.

[Architect]

;3562238']I'm more than willing to criticise the truth movement where it deserves it (starting with the name).

But when it comes to deliberate attacks and misrepresentations of individuals who have been largely civil in their discource (even if the talking-to-a-brick-wall thing does get frustrating), I see more value in being polite than in being unmannerly.


I realize this thread is a candidate for AAH, since it promises to be a slugfest.
But I felt it was worth making a case for civil discourse.


I agree with X, saving for white supremiscists who deserve everything they get. As I've said before, I think that BAUT Forum is a good example of how it should be done.

However I do note that it's very hard to maintain an even temper sometimes, given the stupidity apparent.

[Gazpacho]

I think truthers arriving here are often politely referred to relevant sources of information, and when they come back obviously not having read them, the scorn begins.

[Architect]

Well usually when I have anything to do with "truthers" I am usually polite and only say derisive things when they have derided me a few too many times.

Derisory, surely?


;)

[gtc]

The truth movement may be mistaken regarding the controlled demolition of WTC1 and 2 but this hasn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

You have this around the wrong way.

The truth movement has to prove its claims. It is not up to us to prove the innocence of the US goverment, Israel, the UN or who ever individual truthers choose to blame.

Imagine being charged with a crime, would you rather be tried under a system where the prosecutor has to prove their claim that you did it or a system where you have to prove you didn't do it?

Of course truthers should expect a civil reception on sites like this; just as other people should recieve a civil reception at truther sites.

[Liszt]

I try to educate the educable. White Nationalists are, for the most part uneducable, largely by their own choices.

I will present my evidence to those who have bought into twooferism out of ignorance of the science or lack of real-world experience.

I have no great concern for the feelings of those who advocate for white nationalist positions. They have a rope in mind for my neck, if they get enough useful idiots to help them with their RaHoWa.

I figure my life is more important than their feelings.

white nationalists? I know many, many truthers, and none of them are white nationalists. Actually, most are the opposite. You must live in a wierd part of the world. :)

[leftysergeant]

Try punctuation, you might like it.

Shouldn't that be a semi-colon?:p

[Bananaman]

I'm afraid I've got to the point where I just think truthers are stupid. On the one side you have intelligent people trying to explain things. On the other side you have a howling mess screaming nonsense and not listening.

It's rather like shoving a classroom of bawling kindergarten kids in a university lecture about advanced maths.

It's upsetting for both sides, but only one side understands how the other side's minds works and worries about their nappies needing changing.

Bananaman.

[fuelair]

The truth movement may be mistaken regarding the controlled demolition of WTC1 and 2 but this hasn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
In short, this is a discussion forum where ideas are tried and tested. No one is served by derision and hostility on either side.No, controlled demolition was proved WRONG beyond any reasonable doubt for those with any knowledge (and it is not esoteric/hard to come by at all) of what controlled demolition looks and sounds like when/as the buildings collapsed. That bore only the resemblence that the building fell to CD.
As to the idea that it was a Bush plot (and I loathe that foul creature and his handlers and toadies), he hasn't got the mental capability to fake that goat reading video sequence. So if there was any conspiracy of letting it happen, Bush wasn't in on it.
Scorn and derision are the only reasonable response to those who are ignorant and try to act otherwise, lying and try to act otherwise, or a mixture of both - and that describes troofers completely. That has been demonstrated over and over again. They have no "wins" because there are none for them. They simply waste our oxygen.

[Wildy]

Derisory, surely?


;)

Sorry, you have to explain this to me...

I'm afraid I've got to the point where I just think truthers are stupid. On the one side you have intelligent people trying to explain things. On the other side you have a howling mess screaming nonsense and not listening.

It's rather like shoving a classroom of bawling kindergarten kids in a university lecture about advanced maths.

It's upsetting for both sides, but only one side understands how the other side's minds works and worries about their nappies needing changing.

Bananaman.

Very true, but what can we do about it? If we don't say anything then the "truthers" win.

[DC]

No, controlled demolition was proved WRONG beyond any reasonable doubt for those with any knowledge (and it is not esoteric/hard to come by at all) of what controlled demolition looks and sounds like when/as the buildings collapsed. That bore only the resemblence that the building fell to CD.
As to the idea that it was a Bush plot (and I loathe that foul creature and his handlers and toadies), he hasn't got the mental capability to fake that goat reading video sequence. So if there was any conspiracy of letting it happen, Bush wasn't in on it.
Scorn and derision are the only reasonable response to those who are ignorant and try to act otherwise, lying and try to act otherwise, or a mixture of both - and that describes troofers completely. That has been demonstrated over and over again. They have no "wins" because there are none for them. They simply waste our oxygen.

both sides think they have proven theyr theorys beyond any doubts.
OCTers claim that the motlen stuff from the WTC towers is aluminium and call it fact.
CTers claim it is thermite and call it fact.

and where and who disproved the CD theory pls? are you sure it is not just a countertheory?

im sure non of you guys ever belived Al capone dealed with alcohol during prohibition.

[fuelair]

both sides think they have proven theyr theorys beyond any doubts.
OCTers claim that the motlen stuff from the WTC towers is aluminium and call it fact.
CTers claim it is thermite and call it fact.

and where and who disproved the CD theory pls? are you sure it is not just a countertheory?

im sure non of you guys ever belived Al capone dealed with alcohol during prohibition.
Thanks for making my point!!

And your final line, without offense, is incompetant.

[DC]

Thanks for making my point!!

And your final line, without offense, is incompetant.

my last line is alot more competent than you, they just wast our oxygen BS.

or for what reasons was Al Capone in jail?

[Brainache]

both sides think they have proven theyr theorys beyond any doubts.
OCTers claim that the motlen stuff from the WTC towers is aluminium and call it fact.
CTers claim it is thermite and call it fact.

and where and who disproved the CD theory pls? are you sure it is not just a countertheory?

im sure non of you guys ever belived Al capone dealed with alcohol during prohibition.

There are approximately 100,000,000,000 threads about the CD theory and thermite etc. This thread is about the relative merits of politeness and derision/mockery.

Are you trying to prove a point about the futility of being polite to Truthers, Dick?

[gtc]

Dictator Cheney,

Please read post number 13. It is up to you to provide evidence for a controlled demolition.

No one can prove that some never before heard of CD technique (like hushaboom) was not used to bring down the towers. Just as we can not disprove the theory that Marvin the Martian used his Uranium Pu-36 Explosive Space Modulator to discombobulate the WTC.

However, we can show that none of the evidence is consistent with the known CD techniques while all the evidence is consistent with the theory that the destruction was caused by the two crashed planes.

Are you in need of a primer on the evidence? I am sure someone can give you a link if you can't be bothered reading through the threads in this section.

Also, I apologise for continuing the derail but I feel this is necessary. Also I have no idea what you mean by Al Capone, but I am sure it is off-topic.

[GregoryUrich]

No, controlled demolition was proved WRONG beyond any reasonable doubt for those with any knowledge (and it is not esoteric/hard to come by at all) of what controlled demolition looks and sounds like when/as the buildings collapsed. That bore only the resemblence that the building fell to CD.
As to the idea that it was a Bush plot (and I loathe that foul creature and his handlers and toadies), he hasn't got the mental capability to fake that goat reading video sequence. So if there was any conspiracy of letting it happen, Bush wasn't in on it.
Scorn and derision are the only reasonable response to those who are ignorant and try to act otherwise, lying and try to act otherwise, or a mixture of both - and that describes troofers completely. That has been demonstrated over and over again. They have no "wins" because there are none for them. They simply waste our oxygen.

Personally I don't believe that WTC1 and 2 were CD and I don't think they looked like CD. I have seen legitimate questions regarding NIST's initiation scenario but I have done enough of my own analysis to know that once the columns on one floor fail that the building will come down. I have seen no sound basis for the rest of the "truther" claims regarding CD in WTC1 and 2. WTC7 is more problematic and has not been explained by NIST, but there are still no sounds from explosives and I don't see a motive.

I have not suggested that Bush was the mastermind. I do have my suspicions about Cheney and Rumsfeld though.

You want to paint the entire truth movement as unreasonable and unintelligent. I find that unreasonable and unintelligent.

[DC]

There are approximately 100,000,000,000 threads about the CD theory and thermite etc. This thread is about the relative merits of politeness and derision/mockery.

Are you trying to prove a point about the futility of being polite to Truthers, Dick?

yes it starts already with claiming that YOUR theory is the only one correct trueth, hard evidence and proven without any doubt.
both sides do that with theyr theorys to often.
while they are still theorys, more plausible for some ppl than the other theory. but still it is a theory.

then if someone is not accepting that theory as a fact, they somply claim he is to stupid or uneducated, has no clue and so on.
i repeat, you can see that on both sides.

[Architect]

Dictator, who's sock puppet are you....it's Pd'Oh, isn't it?

[aggle-rithm]

and where and who disproved the CD theory pls? are you sure it is not just a countertheory?



Have you proved that the towers weren't brought down by fairies? Are you sure it is not just a countertheory?

What, you say that's implausible? Says YOU. ;)

I don't want to appear uncivil, but I think it is only responsible to ask questions and demand answers.

[Brainache]

yes it starts already with claiming that YOUR theory is the only one correct trueth, hard evidence and proven without any doubt.
both sides do that with theyr theorys to often.
while they are still theorys, more plausible for some ppl than the other theory. but still it is a theory.

then if someone is not accepting that theory as a fact, they somply claim he is to stupid or uneducated, has no clue and so on.
i repeat, you can see that on both sides.

OK, I see your point, but I feel I have to point out that only one side of the debate has any real evidence at all and it isn't the CT side.

When people make claims for either side without evidence they will be called to support their claims or withdraw them. Truthers never seem to be able to support their claims and they almost never withdraw them.

[aggle-rithm]

yes it starts already with claiming that YOUR theory is the only one correct trueth, hard evidence and proven without any doubt.
both sides do that with theyr theorys to often.


Except that the "truthers" don't HAVE a theory.

Unless you're ready to present one? Are you? Right now? I would love to hear it.

********************

In an effort to stay on topic: Is this a civil response, or a little sarcastic? Is it really sarcasm if the offended party doesn't recognize sarcasm?

[aggle-rithm]

Dictator, who's sock puppet are you....it's Pd'Oh, isn't it?

Uh oh, now you've done it. The wrath of chillzero will soon be upon this thread.

[DC]

OK, I see your point, but I feel I have to point out that only one side of the debate has any real evidence at all and it isn't the CT side.

When people make claims for either side without evidence they will be called to support their claims or withdraw them. Truthers never seem to be able to support their claims and they almost never withdraw them.

cause the others evidence is oc no ecidnece, they use misleading questions in interviews and they scientific papers are not scientific, theyr evidence is BS.

i know that from both sides.

[DC]

Dictator, who's sock puppet are you....it's Pd'Oh, isn't it?

got any evidence? if yes, send it to the admins pls.

[aggle-rithm]

criticism is good and helpfull. but what i witnessed here is far beyond that.

a place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking, in a friendly and lively way.

friendly and lively way i did not witness here.

It's only fair, as we have yet to see skepticism and critical thinking from many posters who complain they aren't being treated in a friendly and lively manner.

[DC]

It's only fair, as we have yet to see skepticism and critical thinking from many posters who complain they aren't being treated in a friendly and lively manner.

how critical thinking is it when ones accept 800°C hot molten aluminium theory?

how much critical thinking is it to not question the Monsantos test about GM food, how critical thinking is it to accept the claims that the negative tests from GM food are flauwed?

critical thinking is relative, and for alot ppl critical thinking stops when they got told something from an authority.

i think ppl need to learn beeing civil with eachother also when theyr thaughts and belives or knowledge are very diffrent.

[Brainache]

...
In an effort to stay on topic: Is this a civil response, or a little sarcastic? Is it really sarcasm if the offended party doesn't recognize sarcasm?

I didn't think you were being sarcastic, but if you were, I don't think it matters whether or not our new chum Dick recognised it. He might surprise us all with a cogent and plausible inside job scenario which will blow the whole stinking case wide open...

[aggle-rithm]

cause the others evidence is oc no ecidnece, they use misleading questions in interviews and they scientific papers are not scientific, theyr evidence is BS.

i know that from both sides.

DC, are you using Internet Explorer? I highly recommend a plug-in called IE7Pro. It contains a spell checker that will work in any text block field.

I can guarantee that it does not contain software that monitors your keystrokes and reports them to the NWO.

[Brainache]

cause the others evidence is oc no ecidnece, they use misleading questions in interviews and they scientific papers are not scientific, theyr evidence is BS.

i know that from both sides.

But it's only true when said by one side of the debate and I'm not talking about the Truthers.

[chillzero]

Uh oh, now you've done it. The wrath of chillzero will soon be upon this thread.

:D

Indeed. Stop it. Report socks, don't bait.

Guys, this thread is not about the weight of evidence for either side, nor is it about CD / non-CD, or even Al Capone. Please keep it on topic.

[aggle-rithm]

critical thinking is relative, and for alot ppl critical thinking stops when they got told something from an authority.

i think ppl need to learn beeing civil with eachother also when theyr thaughts and belives or knowledge are very diffrent.

Regardless of thoughts and beliefs and knowledge, 2 + 2 is always 4 and black is never white. These are very basic axioms of logic, and critical thinking is based on these. Axioms are used to build theorems, which, once proved, are used to build other theorems. Theorems are used to build arguments, and this constitutes critical thinking. As it becomes more complex, it becomes more difficult to verify whether something is true or not, but we can at least assess the LIKELIHOOD of something being true.

Using this methodology, most reasonable people come to the conclusion that trooferism is bunk. Note that, if all axioms on which the conclusion is based are true, and the logic used to reach that conclusion is flawless, then a person's thoughts, beliefs, and knowledge are irrelevant. Rhetoric and semantic quibbling cannot make something true that is not true, as hard as you may try to make it so.

[aggle-rithm]

:D

Indeed. Stop it. Report socks, don't bait.

Guys, this thread is not about the weight of evidence for either side, nor is it about CD / non-CD, or even Al Capone. Please keep it on topic.

Right, the topic....

What was it, again...?

[gtc]

I often copy my posts into Word to check my spelling.

It is hard to take someone seriously if they don't take at least a minimal amount of care over their spelling and grammar (without being a pedant over it) and if they appear not to have read any of the other threads in this forum. In fact it is very easy to assume that such a person is playing some sort of game and very hard to make an effort to be polite to such people.

It also makes it much harder to justify the effort to be polite to new truthers when time so many truthers have been shown to be either impervious to evidence or simply playing games.

[fuelair]

my last line is alot more competent than you, they just wast our oxygen BS.

or for what reasons was Al Capone in jail?You stated a belief that we believed (not belived BTW) that Capone was not involved with illegal alcohol production. As I have serious doubts (feel free to provide your source for your claim) that any of us are unaware of the fact that he was, it is an incompetant and incorrect statement. It is my firm belief that ignorant or lying (pick your choice ) troofers waste our oxygen. That is an opinion, and as such requires no proof (unless you wish to say I am lying about my opinion).

As a side note concerning Capone. You seem to be under the impression he was in jail over alcohol involvement. That is not correct, his only conviction(s) were for federal tax evasion.:)

[Brainache]

Right, the topic....

What was it, again...?

I think it was "How polite do we need to be to braindead trolls?" or something like that.

[pomeroo]

The american public has been lied to and manipulated (http://askquestions911.wordpress.com/disturbing-facts/lies-and-manipulation/) by a despicable administration to serve the neo-con agenda prescribed by PNAC. Respect for human lives and the rights of individuals are clearly not part of that agenda. How deep do these lies and manipulation go? I think it is only responsible to ask questions and demand answers.

Top UN weapons inspector Hans Blix says that Iraq posed no threat and that the Iraq war (the war that Rumsfeld started pushing on Sept. 12, 2001) is about oil. The lives of our soldiers and 10s of thousands (if not 100s of thousands) of Iraq lives have been traded for the economic gains of a small group of people. Why would the lives of a few thousand american citizens matter to these people? In this context the suspicion of murder (or aiding and abetting) is a reasonable question that deserves exploration.

The truth movement may be mistaken regarding the controlled demolition of WTC1 and 2 but this hasn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Compared to the crimes of the Bush administration this pales in comparison. Clearly there are misguided people claiming no planes, space beams and mini-nukes but this is not majority of the truth movement. There is no indication that anyone has been held accountable for the failures of the government before and after 9/11. Instead the truth has been covered up, investigations have been obstructed and failures have been rewarded. This is what the truth movement is really about.

In short, this is a discussion forum where ideas are tried and tested. No one is served by derision and hostility on either side.



Your false and tendentious assertions have been refuted many times. No lies were told by the Bush administration and childish Marxist myths about oil have not stood the test of time. The 9/11 fantasy movement promotes an absurd and demonstrably untrue inside-job theory. Fantasists have no interest whatever in examining the real security flaws that were exploited by the jihadists.

[pomeroo]

Personally I don't believe that WTC1 and 2 were CD and I don't think they looked like CD. I have seen legitimate questions regarding NIST's initiation scenario but I have done enough of my own analysis to know that once the columns on one floor fail that the building will come down. I have seen no sound basis for the rest of the "truther" claims regarding CD in WTC1 and 2. WTC7 is more problematic and has not been explained by NIST, but there are still no sounds from explosives and I don't see a motive.

I have not suggested that Bush was the mastermind. I do have my suspicions about Cheney and Rumsfeld though.

You want to paint the entire truth movement as unreasonable and unintelligent. I find that unreasonable and unintelligent.


I am prepared to state flatly that NONE of the claims made the fantasy movement are reasonable. Not a single one of the 9/11-related myths invented by agenda-driven liars can stand serious scrutiny. A movement built entirely on stupidity, ignorance, and dishonesty is not worthy of respect or common courtesy. Fantasists are, for the most part, vicious, ineducable, hate-filled fools serving an evil cause.

[chillzero]

I am prepared to state flatly that NONE of the claims made the fantasy movement are reasonable. Not a single one of the 9/11-related myths invented by agenda-driven liars can stand serious scrutiny. A movement built entirely on stupidity, ignorance, and dishonesty is not worthy of respect or common courtesy. Fantasists are, for the most part, vicious, ineducable, hate-filled fools serving an evil cause.

But at the same time.... those of you (both sides) gathering little collections of yellow cards, and AAH postings, could possibly do with reconsidering your civility levels to others you disagree with.

;)

It's not worth suspensions and bannings.

[Sizzler]

I am prepared to state flatly that NONE of the claims made the fantasy movement are reasonable. Not a single one of the 9/11-related myths invented by agenda-driven liars can stand serious scrutiny. A movement built entirely on stupidity, ignorance, and dishonesty is not worthy of respect or common courtesy. Fantasists are, for the most part, vicious, ineducable, hate-filled fools serving an evil cause.

That is a pretty bold statement but certainly not the topic of this thread.;)

I personally think that debunkers could up their games if they lost a lot of the rhetoric that they so strongly despise in the truth movement. It all seems a bit ironic from an agnostic point of view:)

[aggle-rithm]

That is a pretty bold statement but certainly not the topic of this thread.;)

I personally think that debunkers could up their games if they lost a lot of the rhetoric that they so strongly despise in the truth movement. It all seems a bit ironic from an agnostic point of view:)

You know someone with an agnostic point of view?

[Bananaman]

Well, let's put it this way. What hasn't been disproved?

What happened on 9/11 that we all gawped at in disbelief is still open to question? Not much.

Towers 1 and 2 came down for the reasons we saw.

World trade centre 7, alone among the other world trade centre buildings that half collapsed, came down later.

None of this is any longer regarded by intelligent people as suspicious.

Did the Pentagon get hit by anything other than a jet holding passengers? No.

They took the body bits out, identified them, and buried them.

Did a plane go out of control and crash in Shanksville? Well, yes, of course it did. Teams of experts dug the dead remains out and again took the trouble to identify and bury them.

Which leaves what precisely to be debated? Again, not much.

Did the secret services in America have an inkling of what was going to happen? Who can say except that it would be about as likely as them knowing Lennon was going to be shot.

And that leaves us with the nonsense of the truth movement. A truth movement so insular and up it's own....They haven't even heard of, or believe in, fundamentalist religion.

Not religion as we know of it, but something more sinister.

Madrid, London. Heads being cut off. Ring any bells?

Ah, it drives you mad. It drives me mad.

And still we have to debate politely whether steel melts at certain temperatures.

I apologise to the mods before I say this (10 warnings from my first 27 posts may be some sort of record) but truthers, let's face it, are idiots.

Bananaman (sorry).

[Good Lt]

That is a pretty bold statement but certainly not the topic of this thread.;)

I personally think that debunkers could up their games if they lost a lot of the rhetoric that they so strongly despise in the truth movement. It all seems a bit ironic from an agnostic point of view:)

While one can be civil rhetorically with members of the 9-11 Troof, the cult and its ridiculous beliefs deserve to be despised and ridiculed.

What have Troofers done in the past six years to earn anyone's respect or civility? They make heinous accusations against innocent people, they minimize the deaths of the 9-11 victims or pretend they didn't happen at all in some cases, ignore facts that run counter to the cult's doctrine, pretend there were no planes and that missiles were fired at our own buildings (from somewhere) with the sole purpose to murder our own citizens, assert with no evidence that secret teams of psychopathic demolitions experts and government officials planted explosives in the WTC, insult the intelligence of every single human being they come into contact with, misrepresent and misquote witnesses, rescue workers and scientists, etc.

All the while they do this, they try to make money off of the tragedy by selling poorly researched, feckless crockumentaries, propaganda DVDs, t-shirts, give lectures riddled with inaccuracies, lies and falsehoods, threaten people who point all of this out to them with death or hanging when the revolution comes, etc.

When the rhetoric sent in the direction of such individuals seems pointed, there are good reasons for this. They deserve it, they asked for it, and they are getting it.

[pomeroo]

That is a pretty bold statement but certainly not the topic of this thread.;)


Yes, it relates very directly to the topic of the thread. Conspiracy liars do not merit civility. There is ample reason to believe that many of them do not take their own claims seriously. A case in point was the disingenuous thread you started on Larry Silverstein. After we ran through the drill for the umpteenth time, we all got the idea that no fantasist is prepared to demonstrate an alternate interpretation of Silverstein's innocuous comment agreeing with the FDNY's assessment of building 7. Agenda-driven charlatans have been twisting the man's meaning for years, and "pull it" still does not mean "blow up the building," and the fire department is still not in the demolition business.



I personally think that debunkers could up their games if they lost a lot of the rhetoric that they so strongly despise in the truth movement. It all seems a bit ironic from an agnostic point of view:)


You don't think anything of the sort. The rationalists' "games" require no upgrading. They have been good enough to destroy the pretensions of the fantasists root-and-branch. The hyperbolic rhetoric employed by the conspiracy liars is designed to mask the total lack of facts supporting their cherished myths.
I have yet to meet anyone who was genuinely agnostic about the events of 9/11. I suspect that no such person exists.

[chillzero]

Let's not personalise this thread.

pomeroo, you may feel that certain members of society do not deserve civility. Fair enough - personal opinions are fine.

Members on this forum, however, do - it's a membership requirement that members here exercise civility, and it's disappointing how often we mods need to remind people of that. (This paragraph not directed specifically at pom)

[GregoryUrich]

Your false and tendentious assertions have been refuted many times. No lies were told by the Bush administration and childish Marxist myths about oil have not stood the test of time. The 9/11 fantasy movement promotes an absurd and demonstrably untrue inside-job theory. Fantasists have no interest whatever in examining the real security flaws that were exploited by the jihadists.

The truth movement varies widely in terms of their claims and purposes, so I think you are just looking for an excuse to vent your spleen, which one would think would be empty by now. Or are you planning on going out with a bang?

So Hans Blix promulgates marxist myths. I never knew that Marx wrote about Operation Iraqi Freedom. I guess he should be lumped in with those who deserve no respect.

The Bush administration told no lies? Talk about false and tendentious.

[pomeroo]

Let's not personalise this thread.

pomeroo, you may feel that certain members of society do not deserve civility. Fair enough - personal opinions are fine.

Members on this forum, however, do - it's a membership requirement that members here exercise civility, and it's disappointing how often we mods need to remind people of that. (This paragraph not directed specifically at pom)


Chillzero, in your commendable desire to uphold the virtue of civility, you tend to dismiss my larger point. If we extend the courtesies we should properly reserve for worthy opponents to absolutely everyone, we create a leveling effect that is unfair to people who take the trouble to present defensible views in a rational manner. A liberal and a conservative can engage in a political debate while still respecting each other's opinions. To feign respect for monstrous views that are advanced through falsehoods, slanders, and threats of violence is to debase further our already low level of discourse. To an obvious degree, fantasists are what they preach.

[chillzero]

Chillzero, in your commendable desire to uphold the virtue of civility, you tend to dismiss my larger point. If we extend the courtesies we should properly reserve for worthy opponents to absolutely everyone, we create a leveling effect that is unfair to people who take the trouble to present defensible views in a rational manner. A liberal and a conservative can engage in a political debate while still respecting each other's opinions. To feign respect for monstrous views that are advanced through falsehoods, slanders, and threats of violence is to debase further our already low level of discourse. To an obvious degree, fantasists are what they preach.

I don't miss any such thing.

In your attempts to display your 'virtuous anger' you lower yourself several levels, and in the process potentially cut yourself off from this arena for discussion.

[DavidJames]

Chillzero, in your commendable desire to uphold the virtue of civility, you tend to dismiss my larger point. If we extend the courtesies we should properly reserve for worthy opponents to absolutely everyone, we create a leveling effect that is unfair to people who take the trouble to present defensible views in a rational manner. A liberal and a conservative can engage in a political debate while still respecting each other's opinions. To feign respect for monstrous views that are advanced through falsehoods, slanders, and threats of violence is to debase further our already low level of discourse. To an obvious degree, fantasists are what they preach.
I agree with you Ron. I know this is a forum management discussion, but to allow accusations of murder without evidence but scold "incivility" is catering and more important enabling those that display the most uncivil of behaviors.

Sorry, had to rant, I'll stop.

[chillzero]

I agree with you Ron. I know this is a forum management discussion, but to allow accusations of murder without evidence but scold "incivility" is catering and more important enabling those that display the most uncivil of behaviors.

Sorry, had to rant, I'll stop.

Mods can't force evidence out of people any more than you can. However, if you don't stay civil in your attempts to obtain this evidence, then you won't sway onlookers, who'll more likely dismiss those who insult and rant, than those who can converse in a civil manner. When civil people still get nothing back, it reflects more poorly on the other side.

Example - StopSylviaBrowne.

[VespaGuy]

No problem.

Try punctuation, you might like it and it'll make your posts more readable.


In defense of DC, I beleive he has said in the past that English is not his first language. Correct me if I'm wrong Dictator Cheney.

What is your primary language, DC?

[A W Smith]

At this point trolls are trolls that are trolls and deserve no respect. it is my opinion that almost a quarter of the troll posts here are socks of previously banned members. They argue just for the sake of arguing and have blistered their hands from moving all those goal posts around. Theirs is a battle of ego and nothing more. The truth movement is going on seven years old. Those with intelligence learned and moved on (http://extruther.blogspot.com/)and abandoned the movement (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=78184). Loose Change Final insult cannot even fill a truther moms basement. The movement is dead and the only audience left is here at JREF. Yes there are truther blogs where they mentally masturbate but its pretty much a closed circle if you get my drift. So no. I'm not going to be nice to them. I refuse to apologize to them for any of my perceived transgressions towards them in other threads. Like Ron said that would elevate them to a status deserving respect that they do not deserve and thus lower the status of those more deserving. But thats my opinion.

[beachnut]

The truth movement may be mistaken regarding the controlled demolition of WTC1 and 2 but this hasn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Compared to the crimes of the Bush administration this pales in comparison. Clearly there are misguided people claiming no planes, space beams and mini-nukes but this is not majority of the truth movement. There is no indication that anyone has been held accountable for the failures of the government before and after 9/11. Instead the truth has been covered up, investigations have been obstructed and failures have been rewarded. This is what the truth movement is really about.

In short, this is a discussion forum where ideas are tried and tested. No one is served by derision and hostility on either side.
Truthers lack knowledge on the topics 9/11. Even this truther goes off on Iraq, not a thing to do with 9/11, he is letting his political bias against bush derail his rational mind so he claims, by signing a truth petition, he has vast amounts of evidence to prove the government did it; he does this with hearsay instead of evidence. He has piles of hearsay which will pour freely every other month or two. He had tried rational thought, with his failed engineering efforts to show 9/11 truth was correct about the WTC, now he has to fall back to hearsay babble made up by kids and old men whose political biases are willing to spread any false ideas, anyone will accept on 9/11.

The rant of hearsay false lies are the stuff of truthers. Be nice to them they have no idea they lack knowledge and logical capabilities to identify facts and evidence and make rational decisions.

They are also unable to list the failures of 9/11 that they would have caught if they were Americans, or in the military, FBI, CIA, FAA.

When in reality Americans did win on 9/11 when they knew the rules. Flight 93 figured out 9/11 (something 9/11 truth has messed up for 6 years, a few americans figured out in minutes) and stopped the plane.

Therefore when we know the rules, we are 100 percent at stopping the terrorist from achieving their goals. Go ahead try to hijack a plane truther.

The rest of truther rant is Monday morning quarterbacking. Failed ideas of people, people use this tactic to feel superior are prone to fall for the lies of 9/11 truth due to their inability to use logic and gain knowledge before they make decisions. Failure is a truther's life on topics of 9/11.

When the truth movement presents evidence and understands the evidence, there will be no truth movement. The hearsay and lies with be gone and finally they will figure out what the Passengers on flight 93 knew on 9/11. What a pathetic group of people who make up false information have mislead people for 6 years. However most people and members of 9/11 truth who fell for the "lies" have left for the rational world; when will you join them?

[GregoryUrich]

Truthers lack knowledge on the topics 9/11. Even this truther goes off on Iraq, not a thing to do with 9/11, he is letting his political bias against bush derail his rational mind so he claims, by signing a truth petition, he has vast amounts of evidence to prove the government did it; he does this with hearsay instead of evidence. He has piles of hearsay which will pour freely every other month or two. He had tried rational thought, with his failed engineering efforts to show 9/11 truth was correct about the WTC, now he has to fall back to hearsay babble made up by kids and old men whose political biases are willing to spread any false ideas, anyone will accept on 9/11.

The rant of hearsay false lies are the stuff of truthers. Be nice to them they have no idea they lack knowledge and logical capabilities to identify facts and evidence and make rational decisions.

They are also unable to list the failures of 9/11 that they would have caught if they were Americans, or in the military, FBI, CIA, FAA.

When in reality Americans did win on 9/11 when they knew the rules. Flight 93 figured out 9/11 (something 9/11 truth has messed up for 6 years, a few americans figured out in minutes) and stopped the plane.

Therefore when we know the rules, we are 100 percent at stopping the terrorist from achieving their goals. Go ahead try to hijack a plane truther.

The rest of truther rant is Monday morning quarterbacking. Failed ideas of people, people use this tactic to feel superior are prone to fall for the lies of 9/11 truth due to their inability to use logic and gain knowledge before they make decisions. Failure is a truther's life on topics of 9/11.

When the truth movement presents evidence and understands the evidence, there will be no truth movement. The hearsay and lies with be gone and finally they will figure out what the Passengers on flight 93 knew on 9/11. What a pathetic group of people who make up false information have mislead people for 6 years. However most people and members of 9/11 truth who fell for the "lies" have left for the rational world; when will you join them?

What's your point?

[DC]

DC, are you using Internet Explorer? I highly recommend a plug-in called IE7Pro. It contains a spell checker that will work in any text block field.

I can guarantee that it does not contain software that monitors your keystrokes and reports them to the NWO.

LOL NWO, im not a NWOling, i dont listen to alex jones, and most of the time i wear no tinfoilhat.

IE= Microsoft, i have opera :)

but a spell checker would be cool or atleast read my own post again before hitting the "Submit Reply" button would help alot.

but i guess most of the time its still understandable.

[DC]

You stated a belief that we believed (not belived BTW) that Capone was not involved with illegal alcohol production. As I have serious doubts (feel free to provide your source for your claim) that any of us are unaware of the fact that he was, it is an incompetant and incorrect statement. It is my firm belief that ignorant or lying (pick your choice ) troofers waste our oxygen. That is an opinion, and as such requires no proof (unless you wish to say I am lying about my opinion).

As a side note concerning Capone. You seem to be under the impression he was in jail over alcohol involvement. That is not correct, his only conviction(s) were for federal tax evasion.:)

wasting oxygen? in other word, we have no right to live? or do i get that wrong?
everyone has a right to use the oxygen, its not your oxygen and its not my oxygen.
thats very unfriendly, i think, to say others waste oxygen.

[DC]

You stated a belief that we believed (not belived BTW) that Capone was not involved with illegal alcohol production. As I have serious doubts (feel free to provide your source for your claim) that any of us are unaware of the fact that he was, it is an incompetant and incorrect statement. It is my firm belief that ignorant or lying (pick your choice ) troofers waste our oxygen. That is an opinion, and as such requires no proof (unless you wish to say I am lying about my opinion).

As a side note concerning Capone. You seem to be under the impression he was in jail over alcohol involvement. That is not correct, his only conviction(s) were for federal tax evasion.:)

no i dont think he was in jail for alcohol smuggling or selling or whatever, he got in jail for not paying enough taxes. there was no evidence to get him in jail for alcohol. and still most ppl think Al Capone when you say prohibition.

[DC]

In defense of DC, I beleive he has said in the past that English is not his first language. Correct me if I'm wrong Dictator Cheney.

What is your primary language, DC?

thx for defence, but he is absolutly right, i know when to set point and comas, normally, i dont know the english rules, but thats not so diffrent from German.

Well I am Swiss and my main language is German, i also speak Dutch, but my spelling is unusable meanwhile cause i dont use it to often. but can still speak and understand it.

that was a nice and friendly post and we didnt even agree :P

[pomeroo]

I don't miss any such thing.

In your attempts to display your 'virtuous anger' you lower yourself several levels, and in the process potentially cut yourself off from this arena for discussion.


We'll have to agree to disagree on this matter. I'm not concerned with the perception I create. Whether I'm elevating or lowering myself is of no great significance. What is important to me is to present information that is factually correct and to argue my position cogently. That fantasists understand themselves to be practicing deception is a key point, one that bears repetition.

You can talk yourself blue in the face trying to reason with the Penta-conmen, but unless you grasp the idea that they know they're frauds, you'll be spinning your wheels. Whenever they trot out their talking point about the north-of-Citgo flight path, you must remind them that they refuse to ask their cherry-picked witnesses to address the mutually-exclusive claims. Calling these people frauds gets right to the heart of the matter: they are not making honest mistakes.

By calling fantasists ineducable I intend to insult them. The truth is, I realize that not all of them are too stupid to recognize errors that have been painstakingly dissected over and over. My purpose is to show that they will never admit to being wrong. And a person who either can't or won't ever acknowledge error is not someone worthy of respect.

[Evilgiraffe]

IE= Microsoft, i have opera :)

but a spell checker would be cool

Opera has a spellchecker... Well version 9.xx does. It's under the Edit menu.

[/derail]

[DC]

Opera has a spellchecker... Well version 9.xx does. It's under the Edit menu.

[/derail]

lol thx, i didnt know that.

oh he moaned i have to install stuff first , will do that later. thx

a friendly post (to keep it on topic, chillzero is hunting me :P )

[chillzero]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this matter. I'm not concerned with the perception I create. Whether I'm elevating or lowering myself is of no great significance. What is important to me is to present information that is factually correct and to argue my position cogently.

You reduce your effect if you can't be reasonable in discussion. If getting information out there is important to you, then do it in a presentable fashion. I would find it very difficult to listen to the guy raging on the street corner, red in the face and spitting everywhere in his fury. That's how some of the posts here come across, and it does the poster no favours at all - in fact, probably the opposite. Passion for something is one thing, presentation is another.

We're going over old ground here, but I can't see at all how you think you can be effective if you get yourself banned.

[Sabrina]

For me, personally, I will tend to treat someone as they have treated me.

The difficulty lies in the fact that this is an internet forum, not a face-to-face-to-face, etc, forum; it's sometimes difficult to determine the tone of a post from mere words on a computer screen. I will say that I have sometimes jumped the gun and derided a new poster who seems to support the truth movement without real cause (albeit rarely), but most of the time I start out as civil and polite as I know how to be while still making the attempt to show where I think their pet theory is ludicrous. My observation of this forum is that there are several people (and no, I will NOT name names; it's pointless and only stirs [rule10] up needlessly) who make being rude and deriding needlessly their modus operandi when dealing with new truthers on this forum, and I don't think it's right. I'm far from perfect in that respect myself, but at least I try to make an effort to be civil in the beginning. I personally feel that it's better to be the bigger person insofar as you're capable of it by remaining polite and civil for as long as you can in the face of their derision (if it exists), because that demonstrates an important point to any would-be lurkers and fencesitters; the fact that we are not descending to the level of kindergarten name-calling and are acting more maturely. For most people, that would be enough to sway them toward logic and reasoned thinking, but when we descend to their level and start name-calling and sneering, they gravitate away.

That's not to say that we should just turn the other cheek on a constant basis; after all, we are only human and there's only so far an individual's temper can be held in check if they are being constantly made fun of for their beliefs, however backed up by evidence they are. I do think that there is a point when it's time to stop being civil and start getting angry. It's difficult to define that point, mind you, but it exists.

So to answer the OP in as concise a manner as I can; I do think you overstep your bounds sometimes and could perhaps stand to start off civil before descending to making fun, but overall you're not being a horrible person by starting the parody threads and poking a little fun at the truth movement. An important point I think you should point out, though, is that very seldom is your ridicule aimed at any particular person, either with the truthers who post here or with truthers who post elsewhere; you aim ridicule at a concept, an idea, not generally at the specific individuals who hold those concepts or ideas. If they take offense, well, they really ought to realize that you're not making fun of THEM; you're making fun of the idea, and they should take a step back before sticking their feet in their respective mouths.

[pomeroo]

The truth movement varies widely in terms of their claims and purposes, so I think you are just looking for an excuse to vent your spleen, which one would think would be empty by now. Or are you planning on going out with a bang?


The fantasy movement makes a variety of wildly implausible claims, but they all dovetail in attempting to exonerate the jihadists. If we try to account for Noam Chomsky's rejection of fantasist myths, we might find ourselves momentarily puzzled. Produce the most imbecilic twoofer alive and you'll notice that he doesn't despise America more than Chomsky does. The conventional wisdom, therefore, is that Chomsky is just too smart to swallow the fantasist snake oil, much as he might want to. The problem with this reasoning is that we're talking about a man who plays footsies with Holocaust deniers and denied Pol Pot's genocide until the mountain of corpses grew too large to wave away. At that point, he blamed America. Chomsky's insistence that America planned a "silent genocide" in Afghanistan shows that he is man for whom preposterous beliefs come easily. So, why does he remain outside the fantasy movement? Return to my first sentence: Chomsky is delighted with the victory won by the oppressed of the world against the Great Satan. He resents the efforts of morons to negate that epochal achievement by attributing it to an imaginary conspiracy.



So Hans Blix promulgates marxist myths. I never knew that Marx wrote about Operation Iraqi Freedom. I guess he should be lumped in with those who deserve no respect.


If Blix thinks that the war was about oil, then he is very foolish. This silly Marxist canard was refuted when America did not seize any Iraqi oilfields in the wake of the first Gulf War. The vacuous LostChild was beaten to a pulp when he tried pretending that there was a connection between the Iraqi oil industry's losses to sabotage and corruption and American oil companies. He couldn't begin to suggest a connection, for the rather compelling reason that there is none.



The Bush administration told no lies? Talk about false and tendentious.



There are many noisy threads in the Politics forum on this subject. In short, the left's Big Lie, that Bush somehow knew something that wasn't known by any intelligence service monitoring Iraq, has been exposed.

[pomeroo]

You reduce your effect if you can't be reasonable in discussion. If getting information out there is important to you, then do it in a presentable fashion. I would find it very difficult to listen to the guy raging on the street corner, red in the face and spitting everywhere in his fury. That's how some of the posts here come across, and it does the poster no favours at all - in fact, probably the opposite. Passion for something is one thing, presentation is another.

We're going over old ground here, but I can't see at all how you think you can be effective if you get yourself banned.


I would, of course, deny that I'm unreasonable while freely confessing that I am unpleasant with fantasists, who I regard as dishonest in the service of an evil cause. If anyone can produce evidence showing that I have employed faulty logic in my debates with twoofers, I'd be curious to examine it.

The misconception persists that I am terribly angry. I feel that it is important to stress that fantasists are not merely wrong in their assertions: they deliberately tell lies, distort quotes, and slander their opponents.

[chillzero]

The misconception persists that I am terribly angry.

Perhaps you should consider how that happens.

;)

[pomeroo]

Perhaps you should consider how that happens.

;)


Perhaps I should. The other day, some guy accused me of being angry. I beat him senseless before asking him where he got that idea.

[chillzero]

I'd laugh, but I don't want to be seen as advocating violence in any way.

:p

[Architect]

Should we be nicer to Truthers.......

....to which the answer is undoubtedly "yes".

[pomeroo]

Should we be nicer to Truthers.......

....to which the answer is undoubtedly "yes".


In that spirit, I think that architects, structural engineers, physicists, chemists, metallurgists, demolition experts, air traffic controllers, avionics techs, pilots, forensic examiners, members of law enforcement agencies, firefighters, etc., should set aside one day of the year as "Take a Twoofer to Work Day." Exposure to the radical notion that people have real jobs might jolt the long-dormant minds of our little buddies and catalyze a flicker of activity.

[GregoryUrich]

The fantasy movement makes a variety of wildly implausible claims, but they all dovetail in attempting to exonerate the jihadists. If we try to account for Noam Chomsky's rejection of fantasist myths, we might find ourselves momentarily puzzled. Produce the most imbecilic twoofer alive and you'll notice that he doesn't despise America more than Chomsky does. The conventional wisdom, therefore, is that Chomsky is just too smart to swallow the fantasist snake oil, much as he might want to. The problem with this reasoning is that we're talking about a man who plays footsies with Holocaust deniers and denied Pol Pot's genocide until the mountain of corpses grew too large to wave away. At that point, he blamed America. Chomsky's insistence that America planned a "silent genocide" in Afghanistan shows that he is man for whom preposterous beliefs come easily. So, why does he remain outside the fantasy movement? Return to my first sentence: Chomsky is delighted with the victory won by the oppressed of the world against the Great Satan. He resents the efforts of morons to negate that epochal achievement by attributing it to an imaginary conspiracy.

If Blix thinks that the war was about oil, then he is very foolish. This silly Marxist canard was refuted when America did not seize any Iraqi oilfields in the wake of the first Gulf War. The vacuous LostChild was beaten to a pulp when he tried pretending that there was a connection between the Iraqi oil industry's losses to sabotage and corruption and American oil companies. He couldn't begin to suggest a connection, for the rather compelling reason that there is none.

There are many noisy threads in the Politics forum on this subject. In short, the left's Big Lie, that Bush somehow knew something that wasn't known by any intelligence service monitoring Iraq, has been exposed.

The world according to Pomeroo. The truth movement wants to "exonerate the jihadists". Marx thinks the US invaded Iraq for oil. Blix is an idiot because he agrees. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld told the truth when they connected Iraq to the 9/11 attacks. Man, you are angry and CONFUSED.

[Architect]

In defense of DC, I beleive he has said in the past that English is not his first language. Correct me if I'm wrong Dictator Cheney.

What is your primary language, DC?

Well firstly, English isn't my first language so he isn't getting any sympathy there....although I grew up in a bilingual school system, and hence arguably have an advantage.

Secondly, however, you will note that his syntax and vocabulary are actually near perfect. It's only pretendy spelling and grammar which are....awry.

[VespaGuy]

Well firstly, English isn't my first language so he isn't getting any sympathy there....although I grew up in a bilingual school system, and hence arguably have an advantage.

Secondly, however, you will note that his syntax and vocabulary are actually near perfect. It's only pretendy spelling and grammar which are....awry.

I actually did notice this. His speech resembles more 'text-speak' (ex. people = ppl) than broken english, but at this time I have no reason to believe that he is lying about English being his second language.

Of course, if anyone speaks German, it would be easy to check...

[ArmillarySphere]

Well, as the old adage goes, you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. If you have a solid knowledge of the facts involved and can back up your claims, this goes a long way towards "winning" a debate.

And when you end up arguing with the real tin-hatters, well, you're not going to convince them no matter what, so the best thing is give them enough ammunition and let the onlookers watch them make a colander out of themselves. Remember that the diehards aren't the objective in that kind of debate - the bystanders are. And sometimes, if you keep your cool, you may give them a reason to pause and think.

[Uzzy]

Personally, I think we should always treat Truthers with respect at first. Give them the benefit of the doubt. Men like Alex Jones and other leaders who are in it for the money are quite good at grooming others into believing their brand of madness. As such, we should at first try educating people, showing them the facts, showing where they are wrong, but doing it in a respectful way.

[pomeroo]

The world according to Pomeroo. The truth movement wants to "exonerate the jihadists". Marx thinks the US invaded Iraq for oil. Blix is an idiot because he agrees. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld told the truth when they connected Iraq to the 9/11 attacks. Man, you are angry and CONFUSED.


Try something really unusual for you: try telling the unvarnished truth.

The fantasy movement (liars promoting nonsense have nothing to do with "truth") is divided between pro-jihadist zealots like Kevin Barrett and a larger group of loons who simply pretend that the jihadists don't exist. For members of the latter group, their sole concern is to smear America. It can't be repeated too often that the jihadists themselves do not want the help of deranged crackpots who would deny them their victory. Conspiracy liars here in the West are certainly not Muslims and don't wish to be governed by shar'ia. They simply hate America, or the government of America, and will stand reality on its head to besmirch this country.

No, Marx doesn't think anything about the invasion of Iraq. He's been dead since 1883. Marxists, on the other hand, have only a hammer in their intellectual toolbox, and consequently view every event as a nail. When their theories of imperialism collapsed in the absence of any actual imperialism, they invented a new concept: neo-colonialism. This enables them to accuse the United States of being a colonialist power despite the manifest fact that the nation does not have or seek colonies. Marxists have been screaming "No blood for oil" since 1991. Perhaps one day they will notice that America has never "stolen" anybody's oil. Nobody seems able to explain how one country might go about stealing another's oil. Countries have nationalized oil fields thereby stealing them from the companies that discovered and developed those fields, but the thieves are always third-world nations and the victims are Western nations. That doesn't count, of course.

Bush never connected Iraq to the jihadist attacks, as you know.

[TjW]

The Debunker's Lot

When a twoofer’s not engaged in self-delusion
Unraveling the NWO’s grand plan
His capacity for innocent confusion
Is just as great as any honest man

Our feelings we with difficulty smother
When reality reminding’s to be done
Taking one consideration with another
A debunker's lot is not a happy one
When reality reminding’s to be done, to be done
A debunker's lot is not a happy one

Once a twoofer has accused the grieving father,
Of conspiracy in murdering his son
He loves exchanging high-fives with his buddies
--“This inside job thing’s sure a lot of fun!”

After fantasizing silent detonations
And imagining a space-based pressor beam
He impresses girls with inside information
Saying darkly, “Things are not the way they seem”

When reality reminding’s to be done, to be done
A debunker’s lot is not a happy one

[Bananaman]

You reduce your effect if you can't be reasonable in discussion.

I disagree. Not always can one sit listening and chuffing contentedly on a pipe and say reasonably, "you're wrong here and here, but so be it". Sometimes you have to get out of you big leather armchair and raise your voice. When you do you sound like Pomeroo, and sometimes me when I get going. Because you can only be prodded so far, if you're any sort of human being worth the name, before you start telling people a few home truths.

Reading posts on this board I feel that 99.9% are reasonable people. The lyrics/poem in the last post put a smile on my face which I'm sure is mirrored in others who've just read it in continents all over the world. We're tolerant and we're understanding when people need understanding.

What we don't do is sit complacently when people spread poison. We're liable to stand up and get nasty. And personally I think the troof movement deserves all it gets now.

Bananaman.

[GregoryUrich]

Try something really unusual for you: try telling the unvarnished truth.

The fantasy movement (liars promoting nonsense have nothing to do with "truth") is divided between pro-jihadist zealots like Kevin Barrett and a larger group of loons who simply pretend that the jihadists don't exist. For members of the latter group, their sole concern is to smear America. It can't be repeated too often that the jihadists themselves do not want the help of deranged crackpots who would deny them their victory. Conspiracy liars here in the West are certainly not Muslims and don't wish to be governed by shar'ia. They simply hate America, or the government of America, and will stand reality on its head to besmirch this country.

No, Marx doesn't think anything about the invasion of Iraq. He's been dead since 1883. Marxists, on the other hand, have only a hammer in their intellectual toolbox, and consequently view every event as a nail. When their theories of imperialism collapsed in the absence of any actual imperialism, they invented a new concept: neo-colonialism. This enables them to accuse the United States of being a colonialist power despite the manifest fact that the nation does not have or seek colonies. Marxists have been screaming "No blood for oil" since 1991. Perhaps one day they will notice that America has never "stolen" anybody's oil. Nobody seems able to explain how one country might go about stealing another's oil. Countries have nationalized oil fields thereby stealing them from the companies that discovered and developed those fields, but the thieves are always third-world nations and the victims are Western nations. That doesn't count, of course.

Bush never connected Iraq to the jihadist attacks, as you know.

A quote from The Center for Public Integrity (http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Default.aspx?src=project_home&context=key_false_statements&id=946)

In a national radio address on September 28, 2002, President Bush flatly asserted: "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq. This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year."

What the American people did not know at the time was that, just three weeks before Bush's radio address, in early September, Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet told the Senate Intelligence Committee that there was no National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Such an assessment had not been done in years because nobody within the intelligence community had deemed it necessary, and, remarkably, nobody at the White House had requested that it be done.

They have documented 28 similar statements by George W. Bush. Either you know this and are lying or you don't know and are making irresponsible statements. You are presently exposed as a blatant propagandist.

Persons using tactics such as you employ don't care about democracy or justice and are in fact contributing to the fall of our country and the values we hold highest.

[Architect]

Gregory

We all know that the two Governments lied about WMD. Read "The War on Truth" by Neil MacKay, foreign editor of the Herald - Scotland's best selling broadsheet. It's been plastered all over the papers here time and time again.

Change the record, mate. Just because we don't buy 9/11 as an inside job doesn't mean that we all support that eejit you have in the Whitehouse.

[GregoryUrich]

Gregory

We all know that the two Governments lied about WMD. Read "The War on Truth" by Neil MacKay, foreign editor of the Herald - Scotland's best selling broadsheet. It's been plastered all over the papers here time and time again.

Change the record, mate. Just because we don't buy 9/11 as an inside job doesn't mean that we all support that eejit you have in the Whitehouse.

I wasn't talking about WMDs and I'm not convinced 9/11 was an inside job. Nonetheless, I have trouble letting Pomeroos rewriting of history go unchallenged.

[pomeroo]

A quote from The Center for Public Integrity (http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Default.aspx?src=project_home&context=key_false_statements&id=946)



They have documented 28 similar statements by George W. Bush. Either you know this and are lying or you don't know and are making irresponsible statements. You are presently exposed as a blatant propagandist.

Persons using tactics such as you employ don't care about democracy or justice and are in fact contributing to the fall of our country and the values we hold highest.


Bush's statement is correct. Steven Hayes documented the ongoing meetings between the Mukhabbarat and al Qaeda, acknowledging that there was no evidence that the ties had reached an operational level. When Bush referred to the presence of al Qaeda in Iraq, he was referring to the training camp at Salman Pak established, with Saddam's approval, by the jihadist group Ansar al Islam. It is common knowledge that Abu Nidal received treatment in Baghdad and later died there. Saddam's cash bounties to Palestinian terrorists demonstrate his support for terrorism.

All of the intelligence services monitoring Iraq concluded that Saddam retained WMD. How many times must we go through this tired refrain?

[pomeroo]

Gregory

We all know that the two Governments lied about WMD. Read "The War on Truth" by Neil MacKay, foreign editor of the Herald - Scotland's best selling broadsheet. It's been plastered all over the papers here time and time again.

Change the record, mate. Just because we don't buy 9/11 as an inside job doesn't mean that we all support that eejit you have in the Whitehouse.


I rerspect your technical expertise, but you are simply wrong that Bush and Blair lied: they didn't. Nobody was saying that Iraq had destroyed the stockpiles catalogued by the U.N. in 1995. Saddam's attempt to deceive Iran fooled everybody.

[pomeroo]

I wasn't talking about WMDs and I'm not convinced 9/11 was an inside job. Nonetheless, I have trouble letting Pomeroos rewriting of history go unchallenged.


And I will never allow the left's Big Lie to go unchallenged. Bush had no way of knowing that no WMD would be found. His reliance on faulty intelligence nearly cost him the 2004 election. It's supremely ironic that LIHOP conspiracy liars insist that Bush should have acted on similar faulty intelligence to thwart the attacks of 9/11 that they excoriate him for acting on two years later in removing the perceived threat of Saddam.

[GregoryUrich]

Bush's statement is correct. Steven Hayes documented the ongoing meetings between the Mukhabbarat and al Qaeda, acknowledging that there was no evidence that the ties had reached an operational level. When Bush referred to the presence of al Qaeda in Iraq, he was referring to the training camp at Salman Pak established, with Saddam's approval, by the jihadist group Ansar al Islam. It is common knowledge that Abu Nidal received treatment in Baghdad and later died there. Saddam's cash bounties to Palestinian terrorists demonstrate his support for terrorism.

All of the intelligence services monitoring Iraq concluded that Saddam retained WMD. How many times must we go through this tired refrain?

Scott Ritter said:

Iraqi defectors have been talking lately about the training camp at Salman Pak, south of Baghdad. They say there's a Boeing aircraft there. That's not true... They say there are railroad mock-ups, bus mock-ups, buildings, and so on. These are all things you'd find in a hostage rescue training camp, which is what this camp was when it was built in the mid-1980s with British intelligence supervision. In fact, British SAS special operations forces were sent to help train the Iraqis in hostage rescue techniques. Any nation with a national airline and that is under attack from terrorists — and Iraq was, from Iran and Syria at the time — would need this capability. Iraq operated Salman Pak as a hostage rescue training facility up until 1992. In 1992, because Iraq no longer had a functioning airline, and because their railroad system was inoperative, Iraq turned the facility over to the Iraqi Intelligence service, particularly the Department of External Threats. These are documented facts coming out of multiple sources from a variety of different countries. The Department of External Threats was created to deal with Kurdistan, in particular, the infusion of Islamic fundamentalist elements from Iran into Kurdistan. So, rather than being a camp dedicated to train Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, it was a camp dedicated to train Iraq to deal with Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. And they did so. Their number one target was the Islamic Kurdish party, which later grew into Al Ansar. ... Ansar comes out of Iran and is supported by Iranians. Iraq, as part of their ongoing war against Islamic fundamentalism, created a unit specifically designed to destroy these people.

Of course he was just lying to "exonerate the jihadists" and probably has childish "marxist views". Pomeroo, you have gone off the deep end.

[pomeroo]

Scott Ritter said:



Of course he was just lying to "exonerate the jihadists" and probably has childish "marxist views". Pomeroo, you have gone off the deep end.


Why do you all of you silly lefties sputter and babble so frantically when you've been caught peddling your propaganda?

Michael Crowley's thoughtful account of Scott Ritter's unexpected turnabout appeared on Slate.com in late 2002:

http://www.slate.com/id/2071502/


As I don't believe that Ritter wants to exonerate jihadists and I've never seen anything to suggest that he's a Marxist, I wonder why you impute to me views that I don't hold. Actually, I don't wonder at all. Your behavior, sadly, is predictable. Right about now the hysterical Dr. Adequate would start accusing me of lying about something.

For an informative discussion of Iraq's ties to al Qaeda, see:

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC06.php?CID=677

[Sabrina]

The Debunker's Lot

When a twoofer’s not engaged in self-delusion
Unraveling the NWO’s grand plan
His capacity for innocent confusion
Is just as great as any honest man

Our feelings we with difficulty smother
When reality reminding’s to be done
Taking one consideration with another
A debunker's lot is not a happy one
When reality reminding’s to be done, to be done
A debunker's lot is not a happy one

Once a twoofer has accused the grieving father,
Of conspiracy in murdering his son
He loves exchanging high-fives with his buddies
--“This inside job thing’s sure a lot of fun!”

After fantasizing silent detonations
And imagining a space-based pressor beam
He impresses girls with inside information
Saying darkly, “Things are not the way they seem”

When reality reminding’s to be done, to be done
A debunker’s lot is not a happy one

Nominated. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3566353#post3566353) :D

[GregoryUrich]

Why do you all of you silly lefties sputter and babble so frantically when you've been caught peddling your propaganda?

Michael Crowley's thoughtful account of Scott Ritter's unexpected turnabout appeared on Slate.com in late 2002:

http://www.slate.com/id/2071502/


As I don't believe that Ritter wants to exonerate jihadists and I've never seen anything to suggest that he's a Marxist, I wonder why you impute to me views that I don't hold. Actually, I don't wonder at all. Your behavior, sadly, is predictable. Right about now the hysterical Dr. Adequate would start accusing me of lying about something.

For an informative discussion of Iraq's ties to al Qaeda, see:

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC06.php?CID=677

The best thing Crowley could come up with for his hit-piece on Ritter is Stockholm syndrone?!

As far as the Shanzer article goes, there are surely at least as many articles stating that Ansar al Islam is supported by Iran. Saddam and Iran were supporting the same terrorists. Right.

In this case, I don't think you are lying. You are just mislead and misguided.

[pomeroo]

The best thing Crowley could come up with for his hit-piece on Ritter is Stockholm syndrone?!

As far as the Shanzer article goes, there are surely at least as many articles stating that Ansar al Islam is supported by Iran. Saddam and Iran were supporting the same terrorists. Right.

In this case, I don't think you are lying. You are just mislead and misguided.


You silly twoofers! Everything that refutes your fantasies is a hit piece.

You are ignoring the meetings between the Mukhabbarat and al Qaeda. I realize that you must do this, but your cause is hopeless.

[ktesibios]

Gregory

We all know that the two Governments lied about WMD. Read "The War on Truth" by Neil MacKay, foreign editor of the Herald - Scotland's best selling broadsheet. It's been plastered all over the papers here time and time again.

Change the record, mate. Just because we don't buy 9/11 as an inside job doesn't mean that we all support that eejit you have in the Whitehouse.

Architect, thanks for highlighting the inanity of the "you're either with us or you're one of Them" unthinking that seems so popular among the patrons of the Alcoa Haberdashery Shoppe. It annoys me no end to have these dingbats deny my inalienable right to hold my own opinion of Geordie Whelps independently of their "inside job" nonsense.

[1337m4n]

This thread turned out better than I thought.

I think I'll work on being more civil. At least with the ones that make an effort to present real debate.

I've got no problem with the occasional humorous barb. Max Photon used to hit us with little jokes every now and then. I was fine with that; sometimes I even laughed along with him. It's all in good fun, really. It's outright hostility that I'm questioning. Insults and antagonistic sarcasm (very different from humorous sarcasm) and all that.

Actually, its as much about being practical as it is about being "nice" for its own sake. I was in Debate all four years of high school. One of the things I learned is that likeability is a large aspect of persuasiveness. People are more inclined to be open-minded to you when you present yourself as friendly; plus nobody with even an ounce of ego or personal pride would be willing to admit defeat to a person who's being hostile to them.

Of course, at the same time I'd say its also important to present the image that things like death threats, spamming, and accusations-without-proof will not be tolerated. These things should be met with the hostility that they richly deserve.

I know, one of you is going to say "the entire Truth Movement is accusation-without-proof". But I'd like to give credit to the Truthers who at least make a wholehearted effort to prove their claims, even if the "proof" turns out to not be any good. I have to say I'm somewhat proud of CIT* for actually doing firsthand research instead of repeating cut-and-past "pull-it" rants.



*Then again, CIT is completely un-civil in debate. But if they WERE civil, I say they would deserve respect.

[GregoryUrich]

Architect, thanks for highlighting the inanity of the "you're either with us or you're one of Them" unthinking that seems so popular among the patrons of the Alcoa Haberdashery Shoppe. It annoys me no end to have these dingbats deny my inalienable right to hold my own opinion of Geordie Whelps independently of their "inside job" nonsense.

I hope you are not insinuating that the inane "unthinking" you describe has any relevance to me or my opinions. I firmly support everyones right to their opinions. As a CD agnostic (leaning towards rejecting CD at this point) I take flack from both sides. I think everyone would benefit from less hostile attitudes. For dealing with trolls, I suggest the "ignore" function.