The reason for countering 9/11 conspiracy numpties

[Bananaman]

You're prabably expecting an emotional plea. This isn't one.

I've read so many 9/11 conspiracy theorist threads I'm practically an expert. OK, I'm not not engineer or architect or pilot, which will surprise no-one who has ever had to delete one of my posts, but for God's sake, it's just reached risible levels now.

Sooner or later every debunker reaches the stage where they just want to whack the miscreant round the head and tell him not to be stupid.

They're faced with facts. They ignore them.

They're faced with evidence. The evidence is lies.

They're faced with bloody horrific in your face proof that they're wrong and they ask silly childish questions about millisecond anomolies.

I shouldn't want to punch the nincompoops, but I do.

So why do I still wish sense to be bashed into their silly heads?

Quite simply because they're pissing on the graves of those who died.

If someone you cared about was murdered, for whatever reason, and the perpetrator was exonerated, if that's the word I want, in favour of an innocent party, I'd be pretty bloody upset. The same principle applies here. Those who died on 9/11 deserve better than to have their murderers excused as puppets, or whatever the latest fantasy they've dreamed up is. It's too sick.

Well, that's it. That's why I no longer laugh at them. I prefer to spit.

Those idiots at the memorial last week...hmmm, let's just say, I wish everyone there had just flicked the V sign at them and thrown the odd bottle of urine, just as if it was a crap band on the stage.

Bananaman (The pissed off)

p.s. admittedly I did get a little emotional, but not in a good way.

[Myriad]

As the eager easily-duped suburban kids move on to new fads and become thin on the ground and the "say anything as long as it's against Bush" contingent see increasing alternative avenues for their political disaffection, we're seeing the residue of the movement and their nature and motivations are becoming clearer.

The anti-Semites and Nazis, we're already familiar with. The career conspiracy exploiters and the lunatics they exploit, we're already familiar with. But there's a significant segment of the most recent wave of Internet truther trolls that appears to be more motivated by direct sympathy for the same Islamic fundamentalist Jihadist ideals (which after cutting through the centuries-old political and religious smokescreens basically come down to "stop giving human rights to women or we lose all hope of getting laid") that motivated the 9/11 attacks in the first place.

The Jihadists have little hope of being able to hijack any more planes so easily. But pissing on the graves of their past victims is easily within their, or their supporters', capabilities. I don't expect that movement to end any time soon.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[liverleef]

I'm fairly conservative (fiscally anyway) but I can have a rational conversation with someone who has polar opposite views. Sometimes I even change my position a little if they present a good argument. I'm open minded and I just don't take things as personally as others do.

The only person that I absolutely cannot keep my cool with is a truther. I've been asked why I'm so opposed to a second investigation. I usually blurt out that the truth movements goal is not a second investigation, their goal is to absolve al Qaeda of the murder of thousands of innocent people and that makes me mad. Really, really mad.

To add to what Myriad said, I think that after the election, particularly if Obama is elected, it will be interesting to see what happens to the truth movement. Many people fall into this group because of blind hatred of President Bush. Most of those truthers are likely to just move on after the election and look for other things to be pissed off about.

Thats when we are going to really have a look at the far right wing anti-government loonies, nazis, anti-semites, etc that make up the core of the truth movement.

[Tweeter]

You're prabably expecting an emotional plea. This isn't one.

I've read so many 9/11 conspiracy theorist threads I'm practically an expert. OK, I'm not not engineer or architect or pilot, which will surprise no-one who has ever had to delete one of my posts, but for God's sake, it's just reached risible levels now.

Sooner or later every debunker reaches the stage where they just want to whack the miscreant round the head and tell him not to be stupid.

They're faced with facts. They ignore them.

They're faced with evidence. The evidence is lies.

They're faced with bloody horrific in your face proof that they're wrong and they ask silly childish questions about millisecond anomolies.

I shouldn't want to punch the nincompoops, but I do.

So why do I still wish sense to be bashed into their silly heads?

Quite simply because they're pissing on the graves of those who died.

If someone you cared about was murdered, for whatever reason, and the perpetrator was exonerated, if that's the word I want, in favour of an innocent party, I'd be pretty bloody upset. The same principle applies here. Those who died on 9/11 deserve better than to have their murderers excused as puppets, or whatever the latest fantasy they've dreamed up is. It's too sick.

Well, that's it. That's why I no longer laugh at them. I prefer to spit.

Those idiots at the memorial last week...hmmm, let's just say, I wish everyone there had just flicked the V sign at them and thrown the odd bottle of urine, just as if it was a crap band on the stage.

Bananaman (The pissed off)

p.s. admittedly I did get a little emotional, but not in a good way.

In the words of old whats his name: " Bring it On"!
Oh thats right you cant, youre just another foreigner.

[Pardalis]

In the words of old whats his name: " Bring it On"!
Oh thats right you cant, youre just another foreigner.

Everybody is a foreigner to somebody else.

Besides, your country is a country of foreigners, it's what drove its progress from the beginning.

[JihadJane]

Quite simply because they're pissing on the graves of those who died.

Many family members of 911 victims are skeptical of the government's account. Perhaps you better inform them to their faces that they are pissing on their loved ones' graves.

[Bananaman]

Many family members of 911 victims are skeptical of the government's account. Perhaps you better inform them to their faces that they are pissing on their loved ones' graves.

Actually, you won't find very many of them supporting truther lies. I'd love to see your stinking group left in a room with all the relatives of those who died. I'd love to see you try and tell them what you think happened. You'd be lucky to get out alive.

Bananaman.

[JihadJane]

Actually, you won't find very many of them supporting truther lies. I'd love to see your stinking group left in a room with all the relatives of those who died. I'd love to see you try and tell them what you think happened. You'd be lucky to get out alive.

Bananaman.

I do not belong to any group, stinking or otherwise.

Your violent fantasies and those of other supposedly rational, scientific-method-supporting posters suggest that you could be using 911 as a way of expressing unrelated psychological issues.

Here is a list of 48 9/11 family members who signed a statement demanding a deeper investigation into the events of 911, who you claim are pissing on their loved one's graves and who you want to punch and spit on:

Joanne Barbara, wife of FDNY Asst. Chief of Dept. Gerard Barbara
Gayle Barker, sister of William A. Karnes, WTC
Michele Bergsohn, wife of Alvin Bergsohn, Cantor Fitzgerald
Derrill Bodley, father of Deora Bodley, passenger on Flight 93
Kathryn C. Bowden, sister of Thomas H. Bowden, Jr. WTC1, 104th floor
Janet Calia, wife of Dominick Calia, Cantor Fitzgerald, WTC1
Maggie Cashman, wife of William Joseph Cashman, United Flight 93
Lynne Castrianno Galante, sister of Leonard Castrianno, 1WTC, 105th floor
Elza Chapa-McGowan, daughter of Rosemary Chapa, Pentagon
Bruce De Cell, father-in-law of Mark Petrocelli North Tower, 92nd floor
Ralph D'Esposito, father of Michael D'Esposito, WTC, 96th floor
Loisanne Diehl, Surviving Spouse, Michael D. Diehl, WTC2, 90th floor
Adina D. Eisenberg, sister of Eric Eisenberg, WTC
Jonathan M. Fisher, son of Dr. Gerald Paul "Geep" Fisher, Pentagon
Michael J. Fox, brother of Jeffrey L. Fox, Tower 2, 89th floor
Laurel A. Gay, sister of Peter A. Gay, AA Flight 11
Irene Golinsky, wife of Col. Ronald F. Golinski USA RET, Pentagon
Lori, Jerry, and Beatrice Guadagno, sister and parents of Richard Guadagno, Flight 93
Kristen Hall, daughter of fallen firefighter Thomas Kuveikis 9/11
Kurt D. Horning, father of Matthew D. Horning, WTC Tower One, 95th floor
Jennifer W. Hunt, wife of William C. Hunt, Euro Brokers
John Keating, son of Barbara Keating, passenger on AA Flight 11
L. Russell Keene II, father of Russ Keene III, WTC2, 89th floor, KBW
Peter Kousoulis, sister died in WTC
Paul & Barbara Kirwin, parents of Glenn Davis Kirwin, Cantor Fitzgerald 105th floor
Barbara Krukowski-Rastelli, mother of William E. Krukowski, NYC firefighter
Laura and Ira Lassman, parents of Nicholas C. Lassman, died in WTC, Tower One
Johnny Lee, husband of Lorraine Greene
Alicia LeGuillow, mother of Nestor A. Cintron III
Francine Levine, sister of Adam K. Ruhalter, who died on 9/11
Bob McIlvaine, father of Robert McIlvaine, WTC, Merrill Lynch
Mary McWilliams, mother of FF Martin E. McWilliams- Engine 22
Daryl J. Meehan, brother of Colleen Ann Barkow, WTC 1, 105th floor
Elvira P. Murphy, wife of Patrick Murphy, WTC 1
Natalee Pecorelli, sister of Thomas Pecorelli of Flight 11
James L Perry, M.D and Patricia J. Perry, parents of John W. Perry, Esq., NYPD Officer 9/11
David Potorti, brother of James Potorti, North Tower, WTC, Marsh & McLennan
Terry Kay Rockefeller, sister of Laura Rockefeller, North Tower, WTC
Grissel Rodriguez-Valentin, wife of Benito Valentin, WTC1, 94th floor
Alissa Rosenberg-Torres, widow of Luis Eduardo Torres, post-9/11 mother, writer
Elaine Saber, mother of Scott Saber
Julie Scarpitta, mother of Michelle Scarpitta, WTC Building 2, 84th floor
Paula Shapiro, mother of Eric Eisenberg, WTC2
Elizabeth Turner, wife of Simon Turner, lost on 11th September 2001
Adele Welty, mother of Firefighter Timothy Welty, FDNY, Squad 288
Joan W. Winton, mother of David Winton, WTC, South Tower, 89th floor
David Yancey, husband of Vicki Yancey, American Airlines Flight 77
Nissa Youngren, daughter of Robert G. LeBlanc, flight 175

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633

[Bananaman]

Jihadjane, in real terms that list isn't very long, and further most of them would laugh at the fantasies of the truth movement.

Live with it.

Bananaman.

[CptColumbo]

Approximately 3000 people died on 9/11, in the attacks. There is probably an average of two living relatives (immediate family) per person. So about 6000 relatives (possibly more).

48/6000 = .008

making .8%

Or am I "math-retarded?"

6000 relatives is an estimate, IMO the actual figure is probably higher, thus lowering the percentage.

[gumboot]

That list, small as it is, only reflects a LIHOP accusation, not a MIHOP scenario which constitutes the overwhelming majority of Truther theories.

[jhunter1163]

Approximately 3000 people died on 9/11, in the attacks. There is probably an average of two living relatives (immediate family) per person. So about 6000 relatives (possibly more).

48/6000 = .008

making .8%

Or am I "math-retarded?"

6000 relatives is an estimate, IMO the actual figure is probably higher, thus lowering the percentage.

IMO, there would be far more than 6,000 relatives, as spouses, children, brothers, sisters, grandparents, and possibly grandchildren should be included as well. I think 50,000 relatives is not unrealistic.

[JihadJane]

What is the relevance of the size of the list to my comment? I just what to know if Bananaman would be prepared to tell these named individuals that they are pissing on their loved ones' graves and whether he/she wants to punch and spit on them.

Does Myriad think they are "Jihadist" supporters?

[CptColumbo]

IMO, there would be far more than 6,000 relatives, as spouses, children, brothers, sisters, grandparents, and possibly grandchildren should be included as well. I think 50,000 relatives is not unrealistic.I was trying to apply PIR rules (closest to the [figure] without going over) and be conservative in the estimate. I also estimated the number of parents, siblings, spouse and children. Everyone has two parents, but not all are still alive. Some people are only children and haven't married and/or had kids yet. Including Grandparents and Grandchildren would certainly increase the number, as would including Step-relatives and In-Laws (as the list seemed to do).

[CptColumbo]

What is the relevance of the size of the list to my comment? I just what to know if Bananaman would be prepared to tell these named individuals that they are pissing on their loved ones' graves and whether he/she wants to punch and spit on them.

Does Myriad think they are "Jihadist" supporters?You apparently missed Bananaman's reply. He wouldn't be telling them they are pissing on their loved ones' graves, since they are asking for a new investigation, not accusing (in some cases) their own relatives of being a part of a plot on 9/11.

Many factions of the "twoof" movement however do accuse the Military, FDNY and NYPD of being a part of the supposed plot.

[gumboot]

What is the relevance of the size of the list to my comment? I just what to know if Bananaman would be prepared to tell these named individuals that they are pissing on their loved ones' graves and whether he/she wants to punch and spit on them.

Does Myriad think they are "Jihadist" supporters?


I think you'll find that the people on that list would not fit the description Bananaman and Myriad offered.

[metamars]

Well, that's it. That's why I no longer laugh at them. I prefer to spit.



As far as I'm concerned, some of your spittle not only ends up (metaphorically speaking), on 911 Truth activists, but also 911 family members, and indeed the entire United States, considered either as a country (under any form of organization), but even more so as a country bound by the rule of law, enshrined in a (praiseworthy) Constitution (http://www.911blogger.com/node/17758#comment).

But hey, as long as some of your metaphorical spit ends up on 911 Truthers, it's worth it, right?

Have a nice day.

[eeyore1954]

Many family members of 911 victims are skeptical of the government's account. Perhaps you better inform them to their faces that they are pissing on their loved ones' graves.

With 3,000 victims of a violent death it is not surprising that a few of the many family members would believe the conspiracy theories. But that is what it is a few. The overwhelming majority do not believe in any of these theories. And they were faced with a sudden void and were searching for reasons. Unfortunatley they have been duped by the "truth movement".

A friends grandson died when he had been drinking and drove into an irrigation ditch. She was given a belief that someone had run him off the road and she spent a small fortune trying to get the information from him through mediums (those vermin bled her dry off of her grief). She firmly believed the theory but that doesn't mean her belief had any basis in fact. People who face these tragedies search for answers to their trouble. And sometimes people lead them astray.

[TjW]

Many family members of 911 victims are skeptical of the government's account. Perhaps you better inform them to their faces that they are pissing on their loved ones' graves.

With 3,000 victims of a violent death it is not surprising that a few of the many family members would believe the conspiracy theories. But that is what it is a few. The overwhelming majority do not believe in any of these theories. And they were faced with a sudden void and were searching for reasons. Unfortunatley they have been duped by the "truth movement".

A friends grandson died when he had been drinking and drove into an irrigation ditch. She was given a belief that someone had run him off the road and she spent a small fortune trying to get the information from him through mediums (those vermin bled her dry off of her grief). She firmly believed the theory but that doesn't mean her belief had any basis in fact. People who face these tragedies search for answers to their trouble. And sometimes people lead them astray.

I am acquainted with a woman whose son was killed by a drunk driver. She was not and is not satisified with the effort that the government puts into apprehending drunk drivers before they can kill.

She can be quite vitriolic when speaking about this.

However, I've never gotten the impression she believes that her son was killed as a result of a government conspiracy to allow drunk driving.

I'm not going to go through a list of people, identify the cherry-picked quotes that serve as a reason to place them on the list, source them, and show item by item which ones are taken out of context. But it wouldn't surprise me to find that if I did that, the actual sentiments expressed would be along the lines of "Those [rule 10] bureaucrats could have done a better job of protecting us, and now they're going to try to minimize their own incompetence so they don't lose their jobs or seniority."

I don't think it's necessarily the case that because they would like to know who the incompetents were, that they believe an investigation would find that the twin towers were brought down by CD. In fact, for the information they're interested in, such an investigation would be a waste of resources.

[JihadJane]

You apparently missed Bananaman's reply. He wouldn't be telling them they are pissing on their loved ones' graves, since they are asking for a new investigation, not accusing (in some cases) their own relatives of being a part of a plot on 9/11.

Many factions of the "twoof" movement however do accuse the Military, FDNY and NYPD of being a part of the supposed plot.

I'm surprised to see a keen practitioner of the scientific method writing such rubbish and using pathetic baby language. Name these "many factions".

I have seen people in the military chain of command accused of complicity but that is very different from your collective " the Military".

Your tactics are shameful and dishonest.

[JihadJane]

@ eeyore1954 and TjW

Why does your offensive cod psychology only apply to the beliefs of people who don't believe the official account?

[Tippit]

Actually, you won't find very many of them supporting truther lies. I'd love to see your stinking group left in a room with all the relatives of those who died. I'd love to see you try and tell them what you think happened. You'd be lucky to get out alive.

Bananaman.

And does the fact that mobs can lynch people make what you're saying any more true? Does that change the fact that Al Qaeda and Bin Laden are sponsored by intelligence agencies? Just because you're really, really angry at Al Qaeda doesn't mean you're right, it just means you're incredulous towards other possibilities.

[johnny karate]

What is the relevance of the size of the list to my comment?


It's certainly relevant to this statement:
Many family members of 911 victims are skeptical of the government's account.

Demonstrably proving it a falsehood and you a liar.

[T.A.M.]

Bananaman:

I know where you are coming from. The comments from the truthers in this thread alone kind of proves the very points you were making. Appeal to emotion, hiding behind the untouchables, are tactics used by the truth movement ad nauseum, and used here in this thread.

It is like Joe Biden said about McCain and Palin (paraphrasing),

"When you have no worthy argument on the issues, what do you do? You attack the man."

Similarly, the truthers have no valid arguments on the issues of 9/11, so now they simply attack the debunkers.

TAM:)

[johnny karate]

Does that change the fact that Al Qaeda and Bin Laden are sponsored by intelligence agencies? Just because you're really, really angry at Al Qaeda doesn't mean you're right, it just means you're incredulous towards other possibilities.

Our incredulity is rooted in the fact that Truthers can't be bothered to come up with a cohesive narrative to be constructively scrutinized, as your statement above demonstrates. You say Al Qaeda is sponsored by intelligent agencies. Other Truthers say they had nothing to do with 9/11, or don't even exist. If your movement wasn't so scattershot in their claims and methodology, perhaps you would garner something other than contempt and ridicule.

[Spud1k]

Here is a list of 48 9/11 family members who signed a statement demanding a deeper investigation into the events of 911, who you claim are pissing on their loved one's graves and who you want to punch and spit on:

(snip)



Some people think that some aspects of 9/11 warrant further investigation. They may have a point in some instances. That doesn't mean that they all subscribe to the truther line (i.e. the government and not AQ should be blamed), so hiding behind them doesn't really defend that viewpoint.

[Tippit]

Our incredulity is rooted in the fact that Truthers can't be bothered to come up with a cohesive narrative to be constructively scrutinized, as your statement above demonstrates. You say Al Qaeda is sponsored by intelligent agencies. Other Truthers say they had nothing to do with 9/11, or don't even exist. If your movement wasn't so scattershot in their claims and methodology, perhaps you would garner something other than contempt and ridicule.

I neither have the ability to construct, nor do I need, a "cohesive narrative" for you to "constructively scrutinize". That would amount to pure speculation. I need merely to distrust the government and media enough to disbelieve their fables, and the official story. The idea that I need to believe the official fairytale or construct some elaborate speculation to please you or others is a false dilemma.

The fact that opinions about what happened on 9/11 are so diverse reflects the failure to know with certainty what happened on 9/11 (excluding those of you who support the official story, who know everything). When you say it's "my" movement, I have to correct you. I don't own it, no one does, or has a legitimate claim to. The fact that anyone who would question what happened on 9/11 will receive contempt and ridicule has to do with the fact that 2,974 people died that day, and that made a lot of people including me very angry. Angry people are often irrational, and questioning what happened in the face of a monolithic media storyline means that some who were characterized as heroes may not be, and that some who were characterized as villains may not be. These are more reasons for people to be angry.

None of this has anything to do with the truth of what actually happened, and as for that I'm pretty sure I will never know exactly.

[TC329]

I shouldn't want to punch the nincompoops, but I do.

So why do I still wish sense to be bashed into their silly heads?

Quite simply because they're pissing on the graves of those who died.


if a loved one of mine was on flight 93 and i lived hundreds or thousands of miles away i would pray that there was someone like me out there tracking down witnesses and gathering their accounts so that i could see them [in full]. if those accounts prove the government was lying to me well then i would feel a lot like the native americans i suppose...........:(

[TC329]

Some people think that some aspects of 9/11 warrant further investigation. They may have a point in some instances. That doesn't mean that they all subscribe to the truther line (i.e. the government and not AQ should be blamed), so hiding behind them doesn't really defend that viewpoint.


the "truther line" is the government is covering up evidence. that evidence would implicate members of the united states, pakistan, saudi arabia, & israeli governments.

i bet those family members agree with that statement whole heartedly.

[Architect]

I am a sceptic. I demand proof before reaching a conclusion.

Based upon what I know of tall building design and construction, the NIST findings are logical and well supported. This is, however, a complex field and I note inter alia that there has been discussion of some aspects of the collapse mechanism from sources such as Ove Arup and, of course, learned Universities. This has focussed on the role of fire and creep in the collapse. It has been well reported in technical journals, and considered by the wider construction community.

I have not seen anything from the 911 Truth Movement which provides a similar depth of evidence and analysis. Until that day, I see no reason to change my view and nor would I expect any other person familiar with the case to do likewise. If members of aforementioned Movement can provide such compelling evidence then please do so, noting that your predecessors have wholly failed to respond to this task.

In the meantime, I do not consider the mildly pejorative term "numpties" to be misapplied, indeed I am minded of the similarly Scottish phrase "doited" in respect of some of the posters we unfortunately encounter.

[CptColumbo]

I'm surprised to see a keen practitioner of the scientific method writing such rubbish and using pathetic baby language. Name these "many factions".

I have seen people in the military chain of command accused of complicity but that is very different from your collective " the Military".

Your tactics are shameful and dishonest.
I was trying to be respectful to you, but I see now that you are only interested in insulting me. I expect you to point out what was dishonest in that post or apologize.

The many factions include the no-planers (including the missile impacters and the fly by guiding another plane in), the mousad did it, the hijackers were arab but backed by the US and so on.

[Architect]

Plus ca change, plus ca meme chose?

[gc051360]

I argue with truthers, in a similar way I used to argue with my little brother when we were kids.

He'd insist that he could beat me an arm wrestling. I'd say "Well, let's arm wrestle" he'd respond with "Nope. I'd beat you too bad".....and that would start about a 10 minute long argument.

I knew he couldn't beat me at arm wrestling. He knew he couldn't beat me at arm wrestling. But, for some reason...I'd engage in that argument.

Something about someone refusing to acknowledge reality, gets to me.

eta: And every truther argument follows the same pattern.

They start off with very bold assertions, that they never back up. They eventually back off of them a bit, and instead choose to grandstand on "Don't believe everything the government says!" type stuff. And then, by the next week...they are back to making the bold assertions. Which they will then back off of, and then grandstand. It's a circle. Why do I engage in it? I'm easily annoyed.

[JihadJane]

Bananaman:

I know where you are coming from. The comments from the truthers in this thread alone kind of proves the very points you were making. Appeal to emotion, hiding behind the untouchables, are tactics used by the truth movement ad nauseum, and used here in this thread.TAM:)

The "disrespecting families" charge, popular with the fire and brimstone wing of the debunker church, is one of the crudest 'appeals to emotion' known to man- and womankind. If I understand the next phrase correctly it is also "hiding behind the untouchables". Or does it only count when the other side do it?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Jihadjane, in real terms that list isn't very long, and further most of them would laugh at the fantasies of the truth movement.

Live with it.

Bananaman.

I can also count.

What is the source of your knowledge of what possibly 50,000** 911 family members think and feel about people who question the truth of the government's account? Do most them really mostly consider it “pissing on their loved ones” graves? If it were a relative of mine who had been murdered I'd be very keen to know who did it and why. Perhaps I'm just projecting, though, and they all feel as violent as you do.

Are you quite sure that you are not also projecting your own feelings onto Family Members and accidentally exploiting them in the process?

The “pissing on the graves of those who died” ruse appropriates the tragic status and suffering of 911 family members and is a highly manipulative, dishonest 'appeal to emotion'. It is a risky trick, though, because many family members inevitably fall into the wrong category and the "appeal to emotion" bounces straight back onto the ruser.

**jhunter1163’s gestimate, above.


--------------------------------------------------




What is the relevance of the size of the list to my comment?

It's certainly relevant to this statement:

Many family members of 911 victims are skeptical of the government's account.

Demonstrably proving it a falsehood and you a liar.

The size of list I reproduced says nothing about how many family members are skeptical of the government's 911 account. Many families members of 911 victims are skeptical. Live with it, as Bananaman would say!

I’d be interested to see you demonstrate, too, how you, like Bananaman, have achieved your apparently intimate knowledge of the thoughts and feelings of so many people. Have they been studied?

I ask you use the word liar" more carefully in the future.

[Architect]

Something about someone refusing to acknowledge reality, gets to me

I have a natural tendancy to support the underdog. I'm no fan of the Bush administration or the American right. If there were a reason to believe that they had orchestrated or even carried out 9/11 then I'd be right up there. But there isn't, and I'm not.

I argue with them because such stupidity annoys me.

[johnny karate]

I neither have the ability to construct, nor do I need, a "cohesive narrative" for you to "constructively scrutinize". That would amount to pure speculation.

And it also provides you with the rather convenient position of not having to actually defend a point of view, or be consistent within that point of view.

I need merely to distrust the government and media enough to disbelieve their fables, and the official story. The idea that I need to believe the official fairytale or construct some elaborate speculation to please you or others is a false dilemma.

I provided you with no dilemma, false or otherwise. I merely made a statement of fact. Truthers often contradict themselves and each other. It makes you sound like idiots and frauds. That's why, for the most part, you are not taken seriously.

The fact that opinions about what happened on 9/11 are so diverse reflects the failure to know with certainty what happened on 9/11 (excluding those of you who support the official story, who know everything).

Opinions aren't diverse. The overwhelming majority of people seem quite content with the version of events corroborated by the evidence you deny exists. The Truth Movements inability to rally any kind of significant support in the public or the media bears this out.

The fact that anyone who would question what happened on 9/11 will receive contempt and ridicule has to do with the fact that 2,974 people died that day, and that made a lot of people including me very angry. Angry people are often irrational, and questioning what happened in the face of a monolithic media storyline means that some who were characterized as heroes may not be, and that some who were characterized as villains may not be. These are more reasons for people to be angry.

And exactly where are all these angry people? If the official version is such an obvious media-concocted sham, why can't Truthers ever seem to get a group larger than 100 or so together to protest? Why is there such a struggle to launch a new investigation? Why isn't there a single professional investigator or law enforcement official anywhere on the planet that has been able to discern and/or reveal the shocking truth behind 9/11 Truthers like yourself pretend is so blatantly obvious?

You use a vague term like "a lot of people" to make it seem as if somehow you have a consensus (that's your cue to whip out that tired, old Scripps poll), and yet Truthers fail again and again to have any significant real world impact.

Why do you suppose that is?

[johnny karate]

The size of list I reproduced says nothing about how many family members are skeptical of the government's 911 account. Many families members of 911 victims are skeptical.

You provided that list as proof of your claim. It was demonstrated that said proof woefully lacked the ability to back up your claim. If you have additional evidence, feel free to submit it anytime.

You continually make the following declarative statement:
Many families members of 911 victims are skeptical.
and as of yet provided absolutely no evidence to back it up. A list of less than 50 names out of thousands in no way constitutes "many". Either support your statement with evidence, retract it, or live with the fact that making an unsubstantiated claim paints you as dishonest.

I’d be interested to see you demonstrate, too, how you, like Bananaman, have achieved your apparently intimate knowledge of the thoughts and feelings of so many people. Have they been studied?

I'm not the one making statements like this:
Many families members of 911 victims are skeptical.
and am therefore not the one that needs to explain how I have intimate knowledge of what these people are thinking or feeling. Your claim, your burden.

I ask you use the word liar" more carefully in the future.

I use it very carefully, and I stand by my use of it in this situation. You made a claim. You so far have failed to support that claim. Until you do so, that makes your claim a lie and you a liar.

[T.A.M.]

I neither have the ability to construct, nor do I need, a "cohesive narrative" for you to "constructively scrutinize". That would amount to pure speculation. I need merely to distrust the government and media enough to disbelieve their fables, and the official story. The idea that I need to believe the official fairytale or construct some elaborate speculation to please you or others is a false dilemma.

You are right, so long as you keep any horrible accusations of mass murder to yourself. However, when you, or anyone else, crosses that line, then you damn well better have another plausible, and evidence backed theory, or you can expect the type of treatment many truthers get from this site, and no doubt from the public at large.


The fact that opinions about what happened on 9/11 are so diverse reflects the failure to know with certainty what happened on 9/11 (excluding those of you who support the official story, who know everything).

No the opinions are diverse due to overactive imaginations, and an ignorance to the facts. I suppose we could add Unicorns and leprachauns to the list of possible theories too, making it even more diverse, but no more realistic or based in fact.


When you say it's "my" movement, I have to correct you. I don't own it, no one does, or has a legitimate claim to. The fact that anyone who would question what happened on 9/11 will receive contempt and ridicule has to do with the fact that 2,974 people died that day, and that made a lot of people including me very angry. Angry people are often irrational, and questioning what happened in the face of a monolithic media storyline means that some who were characterized as heroes may not be, and that some who were characterized as villains may not be. These are more reasons for people to be angry.

There is nothing wrong with being angry about 9/11. There is nothing wrong with being angry at your government, intelligence agencies, etc...

There is SOMETHING DEFINITELY wrong with accusing people, in that govt, and in those agencies, with complicity to mass murder, without any form of hard evidence...not even much if any soft evidence.


None of this has anything to do with the truth of what actually happened, and as for that I'm pretty sure I will never know exactly.

As far as every detail is concerned, you are probably right, but I am willing to bet good money that 100, 200 years from now, the essentials of the narrative of 9/11 WILL NOT have changed.

TAM:)

[JihadJane]

I'm surprised to see a keen practitioner of the scientific method writing such rubbish and using pathetic baby language. Name these "many factions".

I have seen people in the military chain of command accused of complicity but that is very different from your collective " the Military".

Your tactics are shameful and dishonest.

I was trying to be respectful to you, but I see now that you are only interested in insulting me. I expect you to point out what was dishonest in that post or apologize.

The many factions include the no-planers (including the missile impacters and the fly by guiding another plane in), the mousad did it, the hijackers were arab but backed by the US and so on.

I have noticed that you try to be respectful to me and I appreciate it. I apologise for not expressing my outrage in less personalised way.

I find the word "twoofer" offensive, as it is intended to be, and disrespectful. Using such demeaning baby language is a form of crude, playground bullying, normally abandoned with emotional maturity. I find it hard to take anyone who attempts to reinforce their argument by pretending to have a speech impediment seriously.

I also find the tactic of equating 911 Truth with blaming the police, first responders and people in the military to be as offensive as the "pissing on graves" tactic employed in the OP. I found your language deceptive, as I attempted to explain. "The Military" summons an image of many people. Only a very small minority 911 skeptcs, if any at all, blame ordinary men and women in the military for the alleged actions of those in the chain of command or of covert operatives. As far as I'm aware not even "no-planers" do this.

I do not wish to get into a "many" debate like the one that was manufactured earlier to avoid answering my questions, but it is hard to match "many factions" with your list. Perhaps you are simply mistaken rather than being dishonest, in which case I apologise for misunderstanding. If not then I have to say that I do find misrepresentation by an "appeal to emotion", as I saw it, to be shameful and dishonest.

I saw (don't always believe your eyes!) two emotionally manipulative messages today(I paraphrase):

"How could you piss on the graves of the dead?"

Then:

"How could you blame those who put their lives on the line to serve others of being complcit in murdering us?"

In essence both the questions say something like:

"You are so morally corrupt that nothing you say is even worth considering."

or, even shorter:

"Scum!"


How is pointing at Mossad or "speculating the hijackers were arab but backed by the US" translated into "accusing the Military [see above- JJ], FDNY and NYPD of being a part of the supposed plot", especially the latter two groups?

[JihadJane]

You provided that list as proof of your claim.

No, I didn't. I posted it to give names to some of the faceless people Bananaman says she/he wants to hurt and humiliate in the name of the dead, in the name of the people on the list I pasted.

I wrote:

Here is a list of 48 9/11 family members who signed a statement demanding a deeper investigation into the events of 911, who you claim are pissing on their loved one's graves and who you want to punch and spit on"

(Note my emphasis!)

... in response to Bananaman's:

Actually, you won't find very many of them supporting truther lies. I'd love to see your stinking group left in a room with all the relatives of those who died. I'd love to see you try and tell them what you think happened. You'd be lucky to get out alive.

... which was a response to my:

Many family members of 911 victims are skeptical of the government's account. Perhaps you better inform them to their faces that they are pissing on their loved ones' graves.

[JihadJane]

There is SOMETHING DEFINITELY wrong with accusing people [...] with complicity to mass murder, without any form of hard evidence...not even much if any soft evidence.

TAM:)

Caeful! You're sounding exactly like a twooooooofer.

[twinstead]

I don't think the opinion of family members who are 'skeptical' of the government's account weight any more heavily or are more meaningful than the opinions of anybody else.

JihadJane's odd 'politics is more important than evidence' stance aside, I could care less if the Pope himself came out in favor of 'inside job'; to any rational person, and to the satisfaction of any REAL world-wide expert consensus, the 'official story' is the one that is supported by the preponderance of evidence.

I'm a mature, world-aware, and relatively intelligent adult. I am neither a sheep, a mindless automaton, nor an evil minion. I'd be willing to change my position if presented with the proper evidence; it just ain't happening right now.

[eeyore1954]

@ eeyore1954 and TjW

Why does your offensive cod psychology only apply to the beliefs of people who don't believe the official account?

What was offensive about it and what is cod psychology ?

[johnny karate]

No, I didn't. I posted it to give names to some of the faceless people Bananaman says she/he wants to hurt and humiliate in the name of the dead, in the name of the people on the list I pasted.

Spin all you want. You made this claim more than once:
Many family members of 911 victims are skeptical of the government's account.
and have provided no evidence to substantiate it. Until you do so, your claim is a falsehood, and you are a liar.

[CptColumbo]

I have noticed that you try to be respectful to me and I appreciate it. I apologise for not expressing my outrage in less personalised way.

I find the word "twoofer" offensive, as it is intended to be, and disrespectful. Using such demeaning baby language is a form of crude, playground bullying, normally abandoned with emotional maturity. I find it hard to take anyone who attempts to reinforce their argument by pretending to have a speech impediment seriously.
I find the use of the word "truth" by the "twoof" movement offensive, and refuse to use it to describe that delusional group of liars.

I also find the tactic of equating 911 Truth with blaming the police, first responders and people in the military to be as offensive as the "pissing on graves" tactic employed in the OP. I found your language deceptive, as I attempted to explain. "The Military" summons an image of many people. Only a very small minority 911 skeptcs, if any at all, blame ordinary men and women in the military for the alleged actions of those in the chain of command or of covert operatives. As far as I'm aware not even "no-planers" do this.If a person claims, for example that Larry Silverstein ordered the FDNY to destroy WTC7 and then cover it up, they are saying that the FDNY helped perpetrate and cover-up what "really happened." No-planers descriptions of the vaious ways that the Towers and the Pentagon were hit include military aircraft being used, and the Pentagon is a building used by the military, any person who saw (as some have speculated) the debris from a comercial airliner being placed on the lawn would then be part of the conspiracy.

I do not wish to get into a "many" debate like the one that was manufactured earlier to avoid answering my questions, but it is hard to match "many factions" with your list. Perhaps you are simply mistaken rather than being dishonest, in which case I apologise for misunderstanding. If not then I have to say that I do find misrepresentation by an "appeal to emotion", as I saw it, to be shameful and dishonest.If you payed attention to the "scholars for 9/11 'twoof'" you would have seen the in fighting about two years ago, as different members had their own hypothesis and were unwilling to comprimise. Since each hypothesis cannot exist a rift occured. Since then there has been the PfT, CIT, LC:FC forumites fighting amongst themselves. If you want to see each faction, just look at some of their websites and you will see many different hypothesis being put forward.

I saw (don't always believe your eyes!) two emotionally manipulative messages today(I paraphrase):

"How could you piss on the graves of the dead?"

Then:

"How could you blame those who put their lives on the line to serve others of being complcit in murdering us?"

In essence both the questions say something like:

"You are so morally corrupt that nothing you say is even worth considering."

or, even shorter:

"Scum!"Except for the "pissing on graves" bit, which while I failed to put quotes around I was merely quoting from your post which you had quoted from the post before yours, I didn't say any of those things.

[Tippit]

And it also provides you with the rather convenient position of not having to actually defend a point of view, or be consistent within that point of view.



I can defend my point of view. The government and media consist of liars with no credibility operating behind a trail of cover-up and contradiction. Therefore, their own narrative is subject to doubt.



I provided you with no dilemma, false or otherwise. I merely made a statement of fact. Truthers often contradict themselves and each other. It makes you sound like idiots and frauds. That's why, for the most part, you are not taken seriously.



If you judge me on the basis of "truthers", that's your problem. I own my own thoughts and opinions, and I'm responsible for them.

There is plenty of contradiction in the government and media with regard to 9/11, it makes them sound like idiots and frauds. That's why, for the most part, I don't take them seriously.



Opinions aren't diverse. The overwhelming majority of people seem quite content with the version of events corroborated by the evidence you deny exists. The Truth Movements inability to rally any kind of significant support in the public or the media bears this out.



Argument ad populum is a fallacy, you should know this. I don't care what the "overwhelming majority" of people think about anything. The media is very powerful and pervasive, to the degree where it is quite possible to fool most of the people all of the time as well as forming a consensus reality. The TM's shortcomings have more to do with the power of the media and current political conditions than anything else.



And exactly where are all these angry people? If the official version is such an obvious media-concocted sham, why can't Truthers ever seem to get a group larger than 100 or so together to protest? Why is there such a struggle to launch a new investigation? Why isn't there a single professional investigator or law enforcement official anywhere on the planet that has been able to discern and/or reveal the shocking truth behind 9/11 Truthers like yourself pretend is so blatantly obvious?



There are plenty of credible, reasonable people with serious questions about 9/11 who make up the truth movement. Despite this, they don't have the necessary power, or the capability to turn back time and do a thorough investigation of what happened.



You use a vague term like "a lot of people" to make it seem as if somehow you have a consensus (that's your cue to whip out that tired, old Scripps poll), and yet Truthers fail again and again to have any significant real world impact.

Why do you suppose that is?

I don't place much significance on the Scripps poll, I haven't met too many people who question the official version of events. However, as I pointed out above, that doesn't mean anything. According to a survey in 2002, 80% of high school students couldn't find Iraq on a map, but so what? The fact that many people are ignorant of truth doesn't change the truth itself - or at least, the untruth.

[johnny karate]

I can defend my point of view. The government and media consist of liars with no credibility operating behind a trail of cover-up and contradiction. Therefore, their own narrative is subject to doubt.

First, you act like there is some kind of Official Version that was released by the Monolithic Evil Government through the Monolithic Evil Media and spoon-fed to an easily duped public that was completely in the dark about what happened. Are you forgetting that these attacks happened in broad daylight in front of hundreds of witnesses, with the immediate aftermath being broadcast live on television all over the planet?

Then, you conveniently leave out all the non-government, non-media people that corroborate this supposed official version of events. Witnesses, first responders, private sector investigators, etc. Are they all liars with no credibility as well?

Argument ad populum is a fallacy, you should know this. I don't care what the "overwhelming majority" of people think about anything.

You should really learn what that particular fallacy is, and how to properly apply it. You stated that there are many diverse opinions regarding what really happened on 9/11. I pointed out that since most people seem to have accepted the official version, your claim is erroneous. I never invoked the argument ad populum.

The media is very powerful and pervasive, to the degree where it is quite possible to fool most of the people all of the time as well as forming a consensus reality. The TM's shortcomings have more to do with the power of the media and current political conditions than anything else.

Ah, yes. The Monolithic Evil Media canard again. So let me see if I've got this straight, the worldwide media conspired to lie to the entire planet about really happened, and for the most part we all bought it. Except, of course, for cunning geniuses like yourself that were able to see through charade. That sound about right?

There are plenty of credible, reasonable people with serious questions about 9/11 who make up the truth movement.

If you say so. Just nudge me when any of these "credible, reasonable" *snicker* people ever decide to do something constructive or have any real world impact whatsoever regarding the heinous crime they believe took place.

I don't place much significance on the Scripps poll, I haven't met too many people who question the official version of events. However, as I pointed out above, that doesn't mean anything. According to a survey in 2002, 80% of high school students couldn't find Iraq on a map, but so what? The fact that many people are ignorant of truth doesn't change the truth itself - or at least, the untruth.

Yeah, I think I've got it. We're all ignorant, blind sheeple because we buy into the "official version" while only you and a handful of others are awesome super geniuses because you figured out The Truth.

It must be difficult being you, surrounded by all the brain-washed masses that will never have your mental clarity or be able to comprehend the horrible reality that only you can see. I guess being an awesome super genius is more of a curse than a blessing. You'd have my pity, if only I had the intellectual capacity to grasp all these difficult concepts.

[Architect]

There are plenty of credible, reasonable people with serious questions about 9/11 who make up the truth movement. Despite this, they don't have the necessary power, or the capability to turn back time and do a thorough investigation of what happened.


None of whom are in the architectural, structural or fire engineering communities* across the World who have actually studied the report. How very peculiar. Perhaps we've all been "silenced"?





* Gage doesn't count, his "theory" is full of glaring technical errors.

[Architect]

What was offensive about it and what is cod psychology ?

Probably related to the "cod structures" which we see touted by members of the Truth Movement with no formal training or, for that matter, grasp or the basic issues beyone "clunkety clunk".

[JihadJane]

I don't think the opinion of family members who are 'skeptical' of the government's account weight any more heavily or are more meaningful than the opinions of anybody else.

I didn't reproduce the list of signatories to give weight to anyone's account. I posted it because, if bananaman was going to justify her/his carefully described violent urges (mostly involving blows to the head) against his/her favourite "nincompoops" then he was going to have to do the same for the people on the list. I did this to highlight the moral bankruptcy of his disgustingly exploitative argument.

JihadJane's odd 'politics is more important than evidence' stance aside, I could care less if the Pope himself came out in favor of 'inside job'; to any rational person, and to the satisfaction of any REAL world-wide expert consensus, the 'official story' is the one that is supported by the preponderance of evidence.

What is it about my infamous statement (see my signature) that compels its readers to make up their own fantasy fictional version before addressing it? My statement does not say 'politics is more important than evidence', nor does it imply it.

What is so difficult to understand about the word "literacy" that it must be substituted with another word with a completely different meaning?

I am intending to explore this phenomenon further either here:

http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showthread.php?t=122763

or on a seperate dedicated thread.

I'm a mature, world-aware, and relatively intelligent adult. I am neither a sheep, a mindless automaton, nor an evil minion. I'd be willing to change my position if presented with the proper evidence; it just ain't happening right now.


Many intelligent people are to be found in various cults around the world because cult manipulation works on emotions rather than intellect.

As an intelligent person has it ever occurred to you that, if 911 were a covert, criminal, Intelligence-orchestrated operation, then there would no be a trail of hard evidence other than the "evidence" that the perpetrators wanted to be found? The evidence pointing at such an operation is to be found in orchestrated lies and obstructions, surreal "evidence", the changing and inconsistent stories and in the removal and destruction of evidence that is necessary to maintain the ensuing cover-up. Of this there is a plentiful supply, all of it in the public domain.

[Brainache]

...
As an intelligent person has it ever occurred to you that, if 911 were a covert, criminal, Intelligence-orchestrated operation, then there would no be a trail of hard evidence other than the "evidence" that the perpetrators wanted to be found? The evidence pointing at such an operation is to be found in orchestrated lies and obstructions, surreal "evidence", the changing and inconsistent stories and in the removal and destruction of evidence that is necessary to maintain the ensuing cover-up. Of this there is a plentiful supply, all of it in the public domain.

So Jane, has it occurred to you that Intelligence operatives are human beings, not psychopathic robots? Has it occurred to you that covering up something like 9/11 forever is physically impossible? Has it occurred to you that human beings are just not that good at keeping secrets? Has it occurred to you that maybe you watch too many spy movies?

[JihadJane]

I find the use of the word "truth" by the "twoof" movement offensive, and refuse to use it to describe that delusional group of liars

Then you have no right to complain when someone insults you.

If a person claims, for example that Larry Silverstein ordered the FDNY to destroy WTC7 and then cover it up, they are saying that the FDNY helped perpetrate and cover-up what "really happened." No-planers descriptions of the vaious ways that the Towers and the Pentagon were hit include military aircraft being used, and the Pentagon is a building used by the military, any person who saw (as some have speculated) the debris from a comercial airliner being placed on the lawn would then be part of the conspiracy.

Your use of collective nouns such as FDNY and "the military" fails to disguinguish who has power in heirarchical organisations.

If you payed attention to the "scholars for 9/11 'twoof'" you would have seen the in fighting about two years ago, as different members had their own hypothesis and were unwilling to comprimise. Since each hypothesis cannot exist a rift occured. Since then there has been the PfT, CIT, LC:FC forumites fighting amongst themselves. If you want to see each faction, just look at some of their websites and you will see many different hypothesis being put forward.

If you unable to put your point across without using insulting baby language then I will not address it.

Except for the "pissing on graves" bit, which while I failed to put quotes around I was merely quoting from your post which you had quoted from the post before yours, I didn't say any of those things.

As I said, those were arguments I'd seen "today" (yesterday now!). I wasn't putting them in your mouth. My paraphrase "How could you blame those who put their lives on the line to serve others of being complcit in murdering us?" was summing up what I see as the political/emotional intent of your firefighter/police/military shot, which I regard as propagandistic and, therefore, not honest.

[JihadJane]

Spin all you want. You made this claim more than once:

and have provided no evidence to substantiate it. Until you do so, your claim is a falsehood, and you are a liar.

Your "liar" parade is a red herring.

I mentioned that many 911 Family members are skeptical of the "They hate our freedoms" account to emphasise how much spittle bananaman was going to have to manufacture in order to humiliate them all. You can do an internet search yourself if you want to find them. I wasn't making any grand claim about percentages, as you seem to believe. I notice though, that, if, as speculated above, there are 50,000 Family Members then, if only one half of one per cent qualify for bananaman's bile then his or her little fantasy fists are still going to be very busy indeed. I'd like to know if she or he is prepared to tell them all that they are pissing on the graves of the dead.

Perhaps you'd like to tell them.

[JihadJane]

So Jane, has it occurred to you that Intelligence operatives are human beings, not psychopathic robots? Has it occurred to you that covering up something like 9/11 forever is physically impossible? Has it occurred to you that human beings are just not that good at keeping secrets? Has it occurred to you that maybe you watch too many spy movies?

Thanks for your questions, ache.

The Military/Intelligence complex is in the business of manitaining a monopoly of violence. Much of what they do is covert.

[T.A.M.]

I can defend my point of view. The government and media consist of liars with no credibility operating behind a trail of cover-up and contradiction. Therefore, their own narrative is subject to doubt.



If you judge me on the basis of "truthers", that's your problem. I own my own thoughts and opinions, and I'm responsible for them.

There is plenty of contradiction in the government and media with regard to 9/11, it makes them sound like idiots and frauds. That's why, for the most part, I don't take them seriously.



Argument ad populum is a fallacy, you should know this. I don't care what the "overwhelming majority" of people think about anything. The media is very powerful and pervasive, to the degree where it is quite possible to fool most of the people all of the time as well as forming a consensus reality. The TM's shortcomings have more to do with the power of the media and current political conditions than anything else.



There are plenty of credible, reasonable people with serious questions about 9/11 who make up the truth movement. Despite this, they don't have the necessary power, or the capability to turn back time and do a thorough investigation of what happened.



I don't place much significance on the Scripps poll, I haven't met too many people who question the official version of events. However, as I pointed out above, that doesn't mean anything. According to a survey in 2002, 80% of high school students couldn't find Iraq on a map, but so what? The fact that many people are ignorant of truth doesn't change the truth itself - or at least, the untruth.

yada, yada, yada....

The overwhelming EVIDENCE (not polls, or the media, etc...) points to 19 arab hijackers under the umbrella of AL-Qaeda, carrying out 9/11.

Not one single truther, or "independent thinker" has proven otherwise yet. Good luck.

TAM:)

[Brainache]

Thanks for your questions, ache.

The Military/Intelligence complex is in the business of manitaining a monopoly of violence. Much of what they do is covert.


That doesn't make them immune to stuff ups. You seem to be saying that it is possible for intelligence agencies to remain totally water tight even though they have supposedly been tasked with killing thousands of their own countrymen.

You really do think that people in these kinds of jobs are psychopathic robots, don't you?

[Disenchanted]

Thanks for your questions, ache.

The Military/Intelligence complex is in the business of manitaining a monopoly of violence. Much of what they do is covert.

Nice way of dodging the questions and points Brainache made in the post by posting general nonsense about the "Military/Intelligence complex" instead of addressing what he wrote like that people are not good at keeping secrets.

If it is so covert how do you know so much about it?

[JihadJane]

yada, yada, yada....

The overwhelming EVIDENCE (not polls, or the media, etc...) points to 19 arab hijackers under the umbrella of AL-Qaeda, carrying out 9/11.

Not one single truther, or "independent thinker" has proven otherwise yet. Good luck.

TAM:)

TAM:), on all my trawls through the weird and wonderful world of debunker sites and the even weirder world of debunker forums I haven't come across a single piece of conclusive evidence proving your assertion.

[johnny karate]

I mentioned that many 911 Family members are skeptical of the "They hate our freedoms" account...

Appeal to emotion excised for the sake succinctness and relevancy.

I'm not too interested in your reason for telling a lie. It doesn't prevent it from being a lie.

[JihadJane]

Nice way of dodging the questions and points Brainache made in the post by posting general nonsense about the "Military/Intelligence complex" instead of addressing what he wrote like that people are not good at keeping secrets.

If it is so covert how do you know so much about it?

I don't know much about it.

It is a fatal error to judge the predatory individuals at the top of the food chain as if they were normal people.

The a priori "people can't keep secrets argument" is absurd. If there are things that have been successfully kept secret how would we know about them?

[JihadJane]

Appeal to emotion excised for the sake succinctness and relevancy.

I'm not too interested in your reason for telling a lie. It doesn't prevent it from being a lie.

It seems you don't think that many 911 family members doubt the official account then. What makes you think that and what is "many"?

[JihadJane]

That doesn't make them immune to stuff ups. You seem to be saying that it is possible for intelligence agencies to remain totally water tight even though they have supposedly been tasked with killing thousands of their own countrymen.

You really do think that people in these kinds of jobs are psychopathic robots, don't you?

I suggest you do some research into how Intelligence agencies work and how covert miltary operations are organised. There is a lot of information in the public domain on the subject.

[funk de fino]

I suggest you do some research into how Intelligence agencies work and how covert miltary operations are organised. There is a lot of information in the public domain on the subject.

I guess you should take your own advice if you think a normal type covert mission could carry out a MIHOP 911.

[Brainache]

I suggest you do some research into how Intelligence agencies work and how covert miltary operations are organised. There is a lot of information in the public domain on the subject.

What Funk de Fino said.

Let me get this point clear: Are you saying that you think it's possible for the CIA/FBI/WHOEVER to carry out a plan to kill thousands of US civilians without one whistleblower coming forward after 7 years?

[dudalb]

As an intelligent person has it ever occurred to you that, if 911 were a covert, criminal, Intelligence-orchestrated operation, then there would no be a trail of hard evidence other than the "evidence" that the perpetrators wanted to be found? The evidence pointing at such an operation is to be found in orchestrated lies and obstructions, surreal "evidence", the changing and inconsistent stories and in the removal and destruction of evidence that is necessary to maintain the ensuing cover-up. Of this there is a plentiful supply, all of it in the public domain.

Nice way of getting rid of the scientific evidence against the 9/11 Conspiracy theories.
BTW any such coverup would by any common sense involve the FDNY and the NYPD...something which you got annoyned about when we pointed that out.
.

[dudalb]

I suggest you do some research into how Intelligence agencies work and how covert miltary operations are organised. There is a lot of information in the public domain on the subject.



There is a lot of total crap about those two topics in the public domain.

[Tippit]

What Funk de Fino said.

Let me get this point clear: Are you saying that you think it's possible for the CIA/FBI/WHOEVER to carry out a plan to kill thousands of US civilians without one whistleblower coming forward after 7 years?

If whistleblowers would come forward (and they have), who would believe them? Certainly not you.

[Drudgewire]

If whistleblowers would come forward (and they have)


This should be good. :popcorn1

[Spud1k]

If whistleblowers would come forward (and they have), who would believe them? Certainly not you.

Well, when the whistleblower accounts truthers like to talk about involve things like secret controlled demolitions being preceded by a countdown, you can hardly blame people for being suspicious of their credibility.

[Comsat Angel]

If whistleblowers would come forward (and they have), who would believe them? Certainly not you.

Ah, who could forget the earth-shattering revelations of:
Mike the EMT!
Lauro Chavez!
The anonymous ex-CIA guy! (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=115333&highlight=whistleblower)
And that buffoon from an American artillery unit in West Germany back in the 70's, whom I frankly can't be bothered to hunt down.

[Disenchanted]

I don't know much about it.

It is a fatal error to judge the predatory individuals at the top of the food chain as if they were normal people.

That is quite an arrogant statement to make that people in power are abnormally predisposed to be psychos while you are normal. What makes you any different more morally capable then people in power? They are people just as you who happened to come to power. Does that mean if you were given that power you would be a psycho and abuse power just as you claim they do? If you would not what is your evidence that you are different and morally better? If you would then that might say more about you then it does about them.

What about all other people in government like every member of the military, every member of the FBI or New York Firemen are they predatory as well? Seeing as the “predatory individuals” could not do anything without the people in government below them, wouldn’t they need to be so as well? If so what makes you better then them?

It seems to me representing people in power as psychos is away for you to dehumanize them and make it easier for you to cling to you to have fun with your 9/11 conspiracy nonsense.

The a priori "people can't keep secrets argument" is absurd. If there are things that have been successfully kept secret how would we know about them?

The irony of you calling any argument absurd after all of the absurd posts you have written is overwhelming.

Right here you use at least a couple logical fallacies like circular reasoning that the government has done evil acts because they are evil. It is both circular reasoning and an argument from ignorance to argue that the government must be successfully keeping secrets because and successfully keeping secrets because we do not know about it.

Begging the Question/Circular Reasoning (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/beggingthequestion.html)

Argument from Ignorance (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/argumentfromignorance.html)

There is nothing absurd about the notion that people in government or else where cannot keep a secret. All of the whistleblowers and leaks like Mark Felt or just about any legit government abuse that you have heard of came about because someone came forward or leaked it, which shows how absurd your argument is.

ETA: wording change

[johnny karate]

It seems you don't think that many 911 family members doubt the official account then. What makes you think that and what is "many"?

I'm not the one making positive claims about what these people think, so I have nothing for which to account.

As far as what "many" means, I'll assume you have access to a dictionary. To describe a list of less than 50 names out of thousands as "many" is disingenuous at best.

All your verbal gymnastics aside, your claim is still unsubstantiated and has yet to be retracted, so it's still a lie.

[johnny karate]

If whistleblowers would come forward (and they have), who would believe them? Certainly not you.

There are no 9/11 whistleblowers. You are either a lying or have no idea what a whistleblower is. (Hint: It's not someone who maybe worked for the government at some point and believes 9/11 was an inside job.)

[TjW]

That doesn't make them immune to stuff ups. You seem to be saying that it is possible for intelligence agencies to remain totally water tight even though they have supposedly been tasked with killing thousands of their own countrymen.

You really do think that people in these kinds of jobs are psychopathic robots, don't you?

Well, since I already have a reputation for applying cod psychology to twoofers:

She knows how she'd behave in that situation, and since she's completely normal, that's what any normal person would do.

[Brainache]

If whistleblowers would come forward (and they have), who would believe them? Certainly not you.

Others have pointed out the obvious fact that there have been no 9/11 inside job whistleblowers.

The closest I've seen is Sibel Edmonds and all she did was complain about a bit of Beaureaucratic foot dragging by her boss who was trying to get more translators on his staff.

Do you know of any others? (Although, maybe a new thread would be more appropriate. Or perhaps one of the many whistleblower threads already on the forum)

I'd be willing to listen to them, if they brought solid evidence to the table.

[gumboot]

Thanks for your questions, ache.

The Military/Intelligence complex is in the business of manitaining a monopoly of violence. Much of what they do is covert.


Even pretending for a time that your fantasy of perfectly infallible sealed-tight covert military and intelligence units is true, you're left with the problem that any sort of significant US Government involvement in the September 11 Attacks necessitates the involvement of an enormous number of people outside the "Military/Intelligence Complex" who are not in the business of maintaining a monopoly of violence and do not do things covertly. Like the FDNY, for example. Or NIST. Or the world's media. In fact many of these organisations and entities were victims of the attacks, yet for these theories relating to 9/11 to be true, they must have been involved in the attacks themselves - or at the absolute least knowingly partaking in a post-attack deception.

[JihadJane]

Even pretending for a time ... in a post-attack deception.

Yes, let's pretend, for a time, that the official account is bunk. If it were bunk then you, gumboot, would be part of covering-up the bunk.

No-one would be paying you for your countless hours of selfless service to an outrageous pack of lies. You'd know what to do. You wouldn't need to be told.

[JihadJane]

The closest I've seen is Sibel Edmonds and all she did was complain about a bit of Beaureaucratic foot dragging by her boss who was trying to get more translators on his staff.

Sibel Edmonds has complained about a lot more than that.

For example, she has complained that:

"Operating invisibly under the radar of media and public scrutiny, lobby groups and foreign agents have become the ‘epicenter’ of our government, where former statesmen and ‘dime a dozen generals’ cash in on their connections and peddle their enormous influence to the highest bidders turned clients. These groups’ activities shape our nation’s policies and determine the direction of the flow of its taxpayer driven wealth, while to them the interests of the majority are considered irrelevant, and the security of the nation is perceived as inconsequential."

"The Highjacking of a Nation

Part 2: The Auctioning of Former Statesmen & Dime a Dozen Generals"

By Sibel Edmonds

http://nswbc.org/Op%20Ed/Part2-FNL-Nov29-06.htm

[Brainache]

Sibel Edmonds has complained about a lot more than that.

For example, she has complained that:

"Operating invisibly under the radar of media and public scrutiny, lobby groups and foreign agents have become the ‘epicenter’ of our government, where former statesmen and ‘dime a dozen generals’ cash in on their connections and peddle their enormous influence to the highest bidders turned clients. These groups’ activities shape our nation’s policies and determine the direction of the flow of its taxpayer driven wealth, while to them the interests of the majority are considered irrelevant, and the security of the nation is perceived as inconsequential."

"The Highjacking of a Nation

Part 2: The Auctioning of Former Statesmen & Dime a Dozen Generals"

By Sibel Edmonds

http://nswbc.org/Op%20Ed/Part2-FNL-Nov29-06.htm

Seriously: Is this news to you? That wealthy interests lobby politicians to gain favour?

Wow.

It isn't news to me, but I still don't see how this is evidence of an inside job, unless you are saying that Al Qaeda successfully lobbied the President to attack his own country.

[JihadJane]

Seriously: Is this news to you? That wealthy interests lobby politicians to gain favour?

No, though Sibel Edmonds' charges have profound implications about the extent of routine criminality at the highest levels of the US State. Presumably that's why she has been gagged.

Wow.

Easy Tiger!

It isn't news to me, but I still don't see how this is evidence of an inside job, unless you are saying that Al Qaeda successfully lobbied the President to attack his own country.

Evidence of an inside job? I was just pointing out that, contrary to your bizzare claim, she has complained about more than a " bit of Beaureaucratic foot dragging by her boss who was trying to get more translators on his staff."

[Brainache]

No, though Sibel Edmonds' charges have profound implications about the extent of routine criminality at the highest levels of the US State. Presumably that's why she has been gagged.

Just how high-level do you imagine Ms Edmonds is? I presume she was gagged because she was publicly criticising her employer. I wonder who could know the answer?


Evidence of an inside job? I was just pointing out that, contrary to your bizzare claim, she has complained about more than a " bit of Beaureaucratic foot dragging by her boss who was trying to get more translators on his staff."

She has probably complained about the weather too, would that be relevant? She might have had a hang nail once and had a bit of a whinge about that as well, should we call for a new 9/11 investigation because of it?

[jhunter1163]

Sibel Edmonds sure talks a lot for someone who has been "gagged".

[JihadJane]

Sibel Edmonds sure talks a lot for someone who has been "gagged".

Are you denying that she has been gagged?

[jhunter1163]

No. I'm just saying that she sure talks a lot for someone who is supposedly under a gag order. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to just what it is she is not supposed to talk about?

[twinstead]

No. I'm just saying that she sure talks a lot for someone who is supposedly under a gag order. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to just what it is she is not supposed to talk about?

I suspect it's any particulars of the Lithic/Paleo-Indian archaeological period of South America, 'cause she talks about almost everything else.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I can defend my point of view. The government and media consist of liars with no credibility operating behind a trail of cover-up and contradiction. Therefore, their own narrative is subject to doubt.


I really hope that's not what you believe constitutes "defense" of your PoV...

[thatsmystory]

Quite simply because they're pissing on the graves of those who died.

That has been the MO of the Bush administration since 9/12. Exploiting murdered citizens for political gain. To justify invasions. To justify war profiteering. To justify civil liberty reductions.

There has been no official accountability for 9/11. FBI and CIA personnel were promoted!

I don't understand your priorities. One would think citizens would expect more of people who hold powerful positions. Instead your outrage seems to focus on teenagers passing out DVD's.

[johnny karate]

I don't understand your priorities. One would think citizens would expect more of people who hold powerful positions. Instead your outrage seems to focus on teenagers passing out DVD's.

We actually do hold our leaders accountable. We call them "elections". You might want to navigate away from those conspiracy websites now and again to check out current events. Bush is just about the most reviled American president in history, and his administration and political party have both lost substantial power and influence due to his failures as a chief executive.

[Architect]

I see a lot of whinging about the investigation(s) into 911 being utter baloney and blatantly false, yet not a lot of detailed analysis or indeed technical critique. Come on, Truthers, if the NIST report is so obviously flawed feel free to start a thread discussing substantitive technical issues.


Forgive me if I don't hold my breath, though.

[Alferd_Packer]

So, JihadJudy, what are your theories again?

[T.A.M.]

I see a lot of whinging about the investigation(s) into 911 being utter baloney and blatantly false, yet not a lot of detailed analysis or indeed technical critique. Come on, Truthers, if the NIST report is so obviously flawed feel free to start a thread discussing substantitive technical issues.


Forgive me if I don't hold my breath, though.

Wait for it...Wait for it....

Reference to DRG ******** Book in 5....4....3....2...

TAM;)

[BigAl]

never mind