PDA

View Full Version : Denial Stops Here


MaterialismSlave
14th January 2009, 08:47 AM
Hello everyone.

I recently watched Michael Rupperts "Denial Stops Here", and I am looking for debunks on this movie.

I have been searching the debunk part of the forum but they all seem to focus on the extreme conspiracies made up by children, so if you could point me to any site or movie that deals with the real issues I would be grateful.

~enigma~
14th January 2009, 09:12 AM
Hello everyone.

I recently watched Michael Rupperts "Denial Stops Here", and I am looking for debunks on this movie.

I have been searching the debunk part of the forum but they all seem to focus on the extreme conspiracies made up by children, so if you could point me to any site or movie that deals with the real issues I would be grateful.
Ever think you might actually get a real answer if you asked specific questions or better yet search this forum through google, just append site: forums.randi.org. Not for nothing but the search here is not very good. On a side note, Didn't Ruppert get himself lost (run away) in South America? Really dependable source you have.

Drudgewire
14th January 2009, 09:19 AM
On a side note, Didn't Ruppert get himself lost (run away) in South America? Really dependable source you have.


Quick googling found that he was a buddy of Alex Jones until they got in a catfight:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2004/201204jonesrebuttal.htm

Alex is known for not attacking other people. Unlike Ruppert, he has no history of doing so. And yet the sheer venom of Ruppert's article implies that we're psychologically stomping on widows and grieving family members.


Where to even start? :boggled:

~enigma~
14th January 2009, 09:37 AM
Quick googling found that he was a buddy of Alex Jones until they got in a catfight:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2004/201204jonesrebuttal.htm




Where to even start? :boggled:
That's rich. Ruppert calls AJ a racist (which I believe) yet it is Ruppert that is living and probably dining with nazi war criminals down in South America.

MaterialismSlave
14th January 2009, 10:07 AM
So there is no specific debunk on Denial Stops Here? Its a shame since its one of the few theories that doesnt include easy to debunk materials or lies. You should look it up if you havent.

What is the best 911 debunk movie in your opinion? Prefer one that ignores missile on pentagon and no planes insane theories.

~enigma~
14th January 2009, 10:15 AM
So there is no specific debunk on Denial Stops Here? Its a shame since its one of the few theories that doesnt include easy to debunk materials or lies.If you don't ask a specific question you aren't going to get an answer. Is that to difficult for you to understand? You should look it up if you havent.What makes you think we haven't or that we will bother?What is the best 911 debunk movie in your opinion? Prefer one that ignores missile on pentagon and no planes insane theories.
That is another topic for another thread, you are not making a good first impression.

beachnut
14th January 2009, 10:24 AM
Hello everyone.

I recently watched Michael Rupperts "Denial Stops Here", and I am looking for debunks on this movie.

... point me to any site or movie that deals with the real issues I would be grateful.
No real issues from 911Truth; only fantasy, hearsay and lies. And Mike work is the same.
Give us your favorite 911 thing from his video. Where is the new stuff that is real?


Has Mike been shot at for his new work?

Mike's fantasy; the government brought us 911 due to oil. Mike can sit down he knows as much about 9/11 as the entire 911Truth Movement, ZERO.

... new real smoking gun? ... trying to sell books. Money.

Better title, “Insane ideas from Mike; ultimate paranoia” now on DVD. Did you read and watch his video? He tells lies, spews some fantasy and tries to appeal to those who hate some political extreme. What is there to debunk.

Pure junk on 9/11. Is he trying to be the biggest pusher of idiotic ideas?
A grade school kid can debunk Mike’s work, the worst 9/11 tripe you can find is from Mike. Complete fiction. It hurts to watch him lie and spew his fantasy.

Brainster
14th January 2009, 11:44 AM
I watched about 20 minutes of it. It's generally evidence-free. When the question of how many people would have had to know the government did 9-11 and keep it a secret, Ruppert brings up the Manhattan Project. Of course, the Manhattan project (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/12/us/12koval.html?_r=2&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1194844196-2IUvZ+cdIzVkHn5QpDQ41A) is a poor example, since several people working on it revealed information to the Soviets:

Over the years, scholars and federal agents have identified a half-dozen individuals who spied on the bomb project for the Soviets, especially at Los Alamos in New Mexico. All were ďwalk ins,Ē spies by impulse and sympathetic leaning rather than rigorous training.

By contrast, Dr. Koval was a mole groomed in the Soviet Union by the feared G.R.U., the military intelligence agency. Moreover, he gained wide access to Americaís atomic plants, a feat unknown for any other Soviet spy. Nuclear experts say the secrets of bomb manufacturing can be more important than those of design.

I also note that Ruppert claims that the 9-11 attacks were a pretext for the US to steal Iraq's oil. That never ended up happening.

T.A.M.
14th January 2009, 12:12 PM
Hello everyone.

I recently watched Michael Rupperts "Denial Stops Here", and I am looking for debunks on this movie.

I have been searching the debunk part of the forum but they all seem to focus on the extreme conspiracies made up by children, so if you could point me to any site or movie that deals with the real issues I would be grateful.

Are you looking for a debunking of the video because;

(A) you believe what it says, and want to see if anyone has attempted to debunk it.
(B) you think it is a pile of crap, and speculation, and want a link to a good debunking of it?

TAM:)

CurtC
14th January 2009, 01:17 PM
What is the best 911 debunk movie in your opinion? Prefer one that ignores missile on pentagon and no planes insane theories.

Which insane theories, in particular, would you like it to address? The insane theory that AA11 and UAL175 were remote controlled? The insane theory that UAL93 was shot down? The insane theory that NORAD was prevented from responding in a timely way?

MaterialismSlave
14th January 2009, 01:29 PM
Are you looking for a debunking of the video because;

(A) you believe what it says, and want to see if anyone has attempted to debunk it.
(B) you think it is a pile of crap, and speculation, and want a link to a good debunking of it?

TAM:)

I'm researching 911 from both points of view to form a opinion, as I suppose most on this board has done.

I specifically asked for debunks on Denial Stops Here, which ~enigma~had a hard time understanding apparently.

Since no one seems to know of such debunks, and the fact that I have limited time to research, I ask what you experienced debunkers think is the good debunk movies/sites.
I don't have time to go thru them all.

I watched about 20 minutes of it. It's generally evidence-free. When the question of how many people would have had to know the government did 9-11 and keep it a secret, Ruppert brings up the Manhattan Project. Of course, the Manhattan project is a poor example, since several people working on it revealed information to the Soviets:

I dont think that spies in a scientific project reporting to another country is the same as people not admitting they where a part of a mass murder.

If you imply that there should be spies among the supposed 911 evildoers, do you really think the country they spy for would go in public media and say "our spies say it was a inside job". To what benefit?

As for stealing Iraq's oil, I doubt any person using that term really mean it like moving in there and claiming it. I think what most people refer to as stealing is stealing done on paper with contracts from new government that is not hostile to USA.

Give us your favorite 911 thing from his video. Where is the new stuff that is real?


I haven't decided what is real, wouldn't mind some info that dissect his theories on war for oil.
Also a explanation to how the most paranoid industrial country can set themselves in a position to be more or less fully exposed to attacks thanks to ongoing WARGAMES?
Finally, why do officials say that "its not important to find the men behind 911" in some interviews?

Oh, I would like to see these movies debunked if anyone have time:
Al Qaeda Doesn't Exist (Documentary) - 1
Its made by The Corbett Report

Found on Youtube, Its 3 parts but a short one, 25 minutes in total. It has the proof that the foundation to Al Qaeda was made by USA and further discussion on the subject.
I cant post the link because I have to few posts.

Thanks

BCR
14th January 2009, 01:33 PM
I'm researching 911 from both points of view to form a opinion, as I suppose most on this board has done.

I specifically asked for debunks on Denial Stops Here, which ~enigma~had a hard time understanding apparently.

Since no one seems to know of such debunks, and the fact that I have limited time to research, I ask what you experienced debunkers think is the good debunk movies/sites.
I don't have time to go thru them all.



I dont think that spies in a scientific project reporting to another country is the same as people not admitting they where a part of a mass murder.

If you imply that there should be spies among the supposed 911 evildoers, do you really think the country they spy for would go in public media and say "our spies say it was a inside job". To what benefit?

As for stealing Iraq's oil, I doubt any person using that term really mean it like moving in there and claiming it. I think what most people refer to as stealing is stealing done on paper with contracts from new government that is not hostile to USA.



I haven't decided what is real, wouldn't mind some info that dissect his theories on war for oil.
Also a explanation to how the most paranoid industrial country can set themselves in a position to be more or less fully exposed to attacks thanks to ongoing WARGAMES?
Finally, why do officials say that "its not important to find the men behind 911" in some interviews?

Oh, I would like to see these movies debunked if anyone have time:
Al Qaeda Doesn't Exist (Documentary) - 1
Found on Youtube, Its 3 parts. I cant post the link because I have to few posts. Its made by The Corbett Report

Thanks

Sounds like you are doing an advertisement for the movie. I am not going to watch it just to come up with a debunk (better uses for my time).

MaterialismSlave
14th January 2009, 01:36 PM
Sounds like you are doing an advertisement for the movie. I am not going to watch it just to come up with a debunk (better uses for my time).

"Oh, I would like to see these movies debunked if anyone have time:"

Your response was unnecessary spam, as is this one but atleast I get closer to the 15 posts required to post links in messages.

Drudgewire
14th January 2009, 01:38 PM
I specifically asked for debunks on Denial Stops Here, which ~enigma~had a hard time understanding apparently.


As you're new here, you aren't fully grasping what the problem is. Without resorting to bashing, in a nutshell we've seen too many of these movies to continue down the tired old minute-by-minute debunking of them. It has become tedious and circular. Not to mention a blanket "here's a new video, tell me what you think" falls dangerously close to spamming under the current rules.

Therefore, what we ask instead is for specifics of claims from the movie which seem new and worthy of examination. If there's really anything that isn't just a new coat of paint over the same claims the rest hash out then not only will it get a fresh discussion, it will also inspire some of us to actually watch the movie in question and go from there.

Protip: putting "specifically" in bold doesn't really qualify as giving specifics.

MaterialismSlave
14th January 2009, 01:43 PM
As you're new here, you aren't fully grasping what the problem is. Without resorting to bashing, in a nutshell we've seen too many of these movies to continue down the tired old minute-by-minute debunking of them. It has become tedious and circular. Not to mention a blanket "here's a new video, tell me what you think" falls dangerously close to spamming under the current rules.

Therefore, what we ask instead is for specifics of claims from the movie which seem new and worthy of examination. If there's really anything that isn't just a new coat of paint over the same claims the rest hash out then not only will it get a fresh discussion, it will also inspire some of us to actually watch the movie in question and go from there.

Protip: putting "specifically" in bold doesn't really qualify as giving specifics.

I never asked you make a new debunk to Denial Stops Here, I just asked if there was any since I couldn't find anything in my search for it.

As for the movie about Al Qaeda, its a short one 25 minutes in total, has the proof that the foundation to Al Qaeda was made by USA and further discussion on the subject.

Some of above posters seem very defensive, almost aggressive (not aimed at you Drudgewire). I guess you are tired of the debate, but then why are you replying at all?

~enigma~
14th January 2009, 01:45 PM
I specifically asked for debunks on Denial Stops Here, which ~enigma~had a hard time understanding apparently.

No but apparently you have a hard time comprehending what you read. My original response to you said

Ever think you might actually get a real answer if you asked specific questions

Based on your response above, you are lying when you say you are researching from both sides. You are firmly entrenched in short bus territory.

DGM
14th January 2009, 01:48 PM
I'm researching 911 from both points of view to form a opinion, as I suppose most on this board has done.

I specifically asked for debunks on Denial Stops Here, which ~enigma~had a hard time understanding apparently.

Since no one seems to know of such debunks, and the fact that I have limited time to research, I ask what you experienced debunkers think is the good debunk movies/sites.
I don't have time to go thru them all.



I dont think that spies in a scientific project reporting to another country is the same as people not admitting they where a part of a mass murder.

If you imply that there should be spies among the supposed 911 evildoers, do you really think the country they spy for would go in public media and say "our spies say it was a inside job". To what benefit?

As for stealing Iraq's oil, I doubt any person using that term really mean it like moving in there and claiming it. I think what most people refer to as stealing is stealing done on paper with contracts from new government that is not hostile to USA.



I haven't decided what is real, wouldn't mind some info that dissect his theories on war for oil.
Also a explanation to how the most paranoid industrial country can set themselves in a position to be more or less fully exposed to attacks thanks to ongoing WARGAMES?
Finally, why do officials say that "its not important to find the men behind 911" in some interviews?

Oh, I would like to see these movies debunked if anyone have time:
Al Qaeda Doesn't Exist (Documentary) - 1
Found on Youtube, Its 3 parts. I cant post the link because I have to few posts. Its made by The Corbett Report

Thanks
Have you read the 9/11 commission report? Either you have not or for some reason you think it's not true.

War games?

Not important to find the man behind?

You sir are pulling our leg or have not even considered looking for facts behind 9/11.

MaterialismSlave
14th January 2009, 01:57 PM
Have you read the 9/11 commission report? Either you have not or for some reason you think it's not true.

War games?

Not important to find the man behind?

You sir are pulling our leg or have not even considered looking for facts behind 9/11.


No I havent read the commission report, didn't know about it until tonight and its to much info to start now. Will do that and see if I have any unanswered questions.

~enigma~
14th January 2009, 02:00 PM
No I havent read the commission report, didn't know about it until tonight and its to much info to start now. Will do that and see if I have any unanswered questions.
Didn't know about it!?!?! You been living under a rock since 2004?

dudalb
14th January 2009, 02:02 PM
I think I see where this is going, and we have all been there before.
Ruppert and his theories are old hat, I think if one uses the search engine on this site you can find plenty about him.
His latest film seems to be just a rehash of his old theories, and, as people here have pointed out, we get tired of refuting the same nonsense time and time again.

dudalb
14th January 2009, 02:10 PM
In Fact "Denial Stops Here" seems to be just a collection of film clips of Ruppert from his previous videos.
I though Ruppert had retired from the Truth Movement,although I would not be surprised if he could not resist the temptation to get back in again.

Drudgewire
14th January 2009, 02:14 PM
didn't know about it until tonight


*head asplodes*

~enigma~
14th January 2009, 02:20 PM
In Fact "Denial Stops Here" seems to be just a collection of film clips of Ruppert from his previous videos.
I though Ruppert had retired from the Truth Movement,although I would not be surprised if he could not resist the temptation to get back in again.
He ran down to South America like a good little coward after someone broke into and ransacked his office (don't think they stole anything).

MaterialismSlave
14th January 2009, 02:28 PM
Didn't know about it!?!?! You been living under a rock since 2004?
My mistake, thought he was referring to the 9/11 Commission records released today. I have read the Commission Report. Will read the records when I have time.

I think I see where this is going, and we have all been there before.
Ruppert and his theories are old hat, I think if one uses the search engine on this site you can find plenty about him.
His latest film seems to be just a rehash of his old theories, and, as people here have pointed out, we get tired of refuting the same nonsense time and time again.

So you have refuted his previous movies? Thats all I wanted, I just want to know where to look for it.

~enigma~
14th January 2009, 02:33 PM
My mistake, thought he was referring to the 9/11 Commission records released today. I have read the Commission Report. Will read the records when I have time.
Ah, this I understand because based on your third post I would guess you mistake lots of things.

MaterialismSlave
14th January 2009, 02:36 PM
Ah, this I understand because based on your third post I would guess you mistake lots of things.

Specifics please.

Based on all your posts you should just leave this thread alone. I bet there is plenty of other post for your useless oneliners.

Arus808
14th January 2009, 02:45 PM
Can we get back on the thread? What specific issues or claims made in the film do you need clarifications or a rebuttal too?

rwguinn
14th January 2009, 02:52 PM
Are you looking for a debunking of the video because;

(A) you believe what it says, and want to see if anyone has attempted to debunk it.
(B) you think it is a pile of crap, and speculation, and want a link to a good debunking of it?

TAM:)
I object, Mr. Chairman.
Rules of Order state that the motive behind a motion may not be questioned, only the motion itself.:D

gnome
14th January 2009, 02:52 PM
Perhaps this will help. You recently watched "Denial Stops Here" and appear to be interested in the opinion of the skeptics here.

It's been expressed that because of the redundancy in most of the claims that before commenting some specifics might be useful.

It's a simple question: which parts of the movie did you find the most compelling? Which theories do you not consider childish? If you were even to name one or two I bet you'd have some takers.

When you just throw it out there and avoid bringing up any particular topics (of which there are MANY) it makes it look less like you're here to find out anything and more like you're here to generate buzz about the movie. So I hope you'll understand if you're viewed with some degree of suspicion and hostility. Easily cleared up--let us know what were your favorite parts of the film?

DGM
14th January 2009, 02:59 PM
As far as the war games go search for NORAD and look for Gumboot's posts (I think he even started a thread). He has dissected this topic and I would consider him the resident expert.

sleahead
14th January 2009, 03:05 PM
Also a explanation to how the most paranoid industrial country can set themselves in a position to be more or less fully exposed to attacks thanks to ongoing WARGAMES?

Well, I don't agree that it was thanks to wargames. Does Ruppert still include Tripod II, which wasn't scheduled to commence until September 12th? Anyways, what you're looking for is Gumboot's Norad Paper. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70300)

beachnut
14th January 2009, 03:14 PM
No I havent read the commission report, didn't know about it until tonight and its to much info to start now. Will do that and see if I have any unanswered questions.
The stuff you presented is pure junk. There is nothing to debunk because it is all made up. It is BS.

You spoke of proof, it was fantasy. If you think otherwise you may be gullible.

You have discovered the Internet, the vast wasteland of false ideas for the gullible.


Who did it? Ruppert says Cheney and the Secret Service in the PEOC. How dumb do things get, oops, yes, Cheney had software to override the FAA and enable 9/11 to happen. This is pure stupid and BS. How do you debunk pure stupid?


Specifics please.

Based on all your posts you should just leave this thread alone. I bet there is plenty of other post for your useless oneliners.

You are the one asking for a debunking of a video what is clearly pure BS.

jaydeehess
14th January 2009, 03:25 PM
I doubt if there is a specific video or web page devoted to debunking every other specific 911 conspiracy video or web page.

All here have already spent many hours that we will not get back viewing all manner of carp and thus we would like to know what specific issues are raised in the video in question. certainly you could give us a short report of what Rupert is saying.

DGM
14th January 2009, 03:59 PM
Since no one seems to know of such debunks, and the fact that I have limited time to research, I ask what you experienced debunkers think is the good debunk movies/sites.
I don't have time to go thru them all.


I can't help but wonder, what's your rush?

This is exactly what the conspiracy theory pushers want. They don't want you to spend the time necessary to understand the complexities of the subject at hand. Don't fall into their trap and look for the quick answer. Studying the whole event and all it's complexities is the only way you will truly understand how the events of that day transpired. Also expect them to prove their claims as you would any one supporting the "official story". You will find they come up short every time.

Quad4_72
14th January 2009, 04:03 PM
I don't do the whole "Watch this movie and debunk it for me" thing. In most of these nutter movies, many many claims are made. You must bring up specific claims if we are going to get anywhere here. Name one thing that you want debunked from that movie. I can guarantee you it has been covered.

Brainster
14th January 2009, 04:50 PM
Somebody brought up Ruppert's flight to Venezuela. Back in 2006, Ruppert became a suspect in the burglary of his own offices (http://archive.dailytidings.com/2006/1204/stories/1204_wilderness.php).

But, in June, he accused an ex-employee of burglarizing his office, shortly after that employee accused him of sexual harassment. Around the time that Ashland police pegged him as a potential suspect in the crime, he changed his story and claimed to flee to Venezuela.

"There are facts about the timing of the burglary that may eventually connect to events here in Venezuela," he said in a farewell letter on his Web site. At that time, he said his site would continue without him, making a plea for financial donations.

He didn't last long in Hugo Chavez's paradise; IIRC about two months later he went to Toronto, reportedly to seek medical treatment. He's apparently living in the Los Angeles area currently.

As one who monitors the 9-11 Truthers on a daily basis, I can tell you that this movie got traction or interest. I had never even heard of it before today. It's long on unsupported conclusions and short on evidence.

Ruppert was a giant of the Troofer Movement during the early days, there's no denying that. But time and events have passed him by.

~enigma~
14th January 2009, 05:22 PM
Somebody brought up Ruppert's flight to Venezuela. Back in 2006, Ruppert became a suspect in the burglary of his own offices (http://archive.dailytidings.com/2006/1204/stories/1204_wilderness.php).



He didn't last long in Hugo Chavez's paradise; IIRC about two months later he went to Toronto, reportedly to seek medical treatment. He's apparently living in the Los Angeles area currently.

As one who monitors the 9-11 Truthers on a daily basis, I can tell you that this movie got traction or interest. I had never even heard of it before today. It's long on unsupported conclusions and short on evidence.

Ruppert was a giant of the Troofer Movement during the early days, there's no denying that. But time and events have passed him by.
IOW he's a dismal failure at running away. Another impotent humanoid truther...how surprising :)

A W Smith
15th January 2009, 11:52 AM
I'm researching 911 from both points of view to form a opinion, as I suppose most on this board has done.

I specifically asked for debunks on Denial Stops Here, which ~enigma~had a hard time understanding apparently.

Since no one seems to know of such debunks, and the fact that I have limited time to research,
you have limited time? What? are ya gonna die soon? have a book report due and too busy playing Warcraft or something?
I ask what you experienced debunkers think is the good debunk movies/sites.
I don't have time to go thru them all.


You know how many idiots have come here in the past 7 years asking us to do their work for them because they are too inept or too lazy to RESEARCH for themselves? lemme make this clear. We don't make "movies'. as we have no books or barbecue aprons or DVDs to peddle or fragile ego's to massage. heres what you do. get a legal pad and jot down one by one the points that are made in your little 20 something minute movie and research them one by one. theres a URL in my sig. follow it. if that fails to fill your needs and you need something randi.org specific. Go to google and do an advanced search within this domain. We are not here to re-type the points that have been made in the past seven years over and over and over again each time someone clueless shows up.

dudalb
15th January 2009, 01:33 PM
I guess it occured to the OP to type in the name "Ruppert" or the names of the previous Ruppert films into the JREF Search Engine and see what he gets.

GStan
15th January 2009, 01:48 PM
I guess it occured to the OP to type in the name "Ruppert" or the names of the previous Ruppert films into the JREF Search Engine and see what he gets.

Yeah. I'm sure he's pouring through old threads as we speak, saying to himself, 'hmmm....most of these JREFers are too dumb to read between the lines, but, man, that LastChild is a genius!"

T.A.M.
15th January 2009, 01:48 PM
I object, Mr. Chairman.
Rules of Order state that the motive behind a motion may not be questioned, only the motion itself.:D

Of course, that is correct Mr.Engineer. However, the motive behind the motion is a direct predictor of whether I will give the motion the "time of day" or not.

TAM;)

T.A.M.
15th January 2009, 01:49 PM
Materialslave:

Go here:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home

You are welcome

TAM:)

A W Smith
15th January 2009, 02:36 PM
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&as_qdr=all&q=Ruppert+site:forums.randi.org&start=0&sa=N

JimBenArm
15th January 2009, 05:54 PM
I don't normally point out typing, but there's a major one in the OP. Starts is spelled S-T-A-R-T-S not S-T-O-P-S.

Glad to be of assistance. Let me know if there's anything else you need help with.

gnome
15th January 2009, 07:50 PM
I think it's a hit and run, folks... may be too early to tell, not everyone logs on every night.

JoeyDonuts
15th January 2009, 08:07 PM
My opinion of Mike Ruppert can be wrapped up in two words: Delmart Vreeland.

Anyone who is thinking about giving creedence to Ruppert's ideas and theories would do well to look into the whole sad Vreeland episode.

rwguinn
15th January 2009, 08:14 PM
Of course, that is correct Mr.Engineer. However, the motive behind the motion is a direct predictor of whether I will give the motion the "time of day" or not.

TAM;)
Point taken. Objection withdrawn...

skepticalcriticalguy
15th January 2009, 09:15 PM
I watched about 20 minutes of it. It's generally evidence-free. When the question of how many people would have had to know the government did 9-11 and keep it a secret, Ruppert brings up the Manhattan Project. Of course, the Manhattan project (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/12/us/12koval.html?_r=2&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1194844196-2IUvZ+cdIzVkHn5QpDQ41A) is a poor example, since several people working on it revealed information to the Soviets:



I also note that Ruppert claims that the 9-11 attacks were a pretext for the US to steal Iraq's oil. That never ended up happening.

Well, the US didn't specifically steal Iraq's oil. As in go get it and ship it back. But who really controls those oil fields now?

JoeyDonuts
15th January 2009, 09:46 PM
Well, the US didn't specifically steal Iraq's oil. As in go get it and ship it back. But who really controls those oil fields now?

This may help.

http://www.iraqrevenuewatch.org/reports/052706.pdf

For all intents and purposes the Iraqi Oil Ministry appears to be the best answer to your question, although if I understand the information in the link, it's not as centralized as it used to be.

MaterialismSlave
16th January 2009, 02:49 AM
Seems to me that many in this topic is just a bunch of people with superiority complex, Do you really think that your attitude will benefit you or your points of view in any way?

I concluded that Ruppert is not a good source for info. I just got into this 911 thing, I live in Sweden so I haven't been that interested in 911 as its just as distant as a murder or bombing in middle east to me. I have work and a son thats 8 months that takes alot of my time and thats why I dont have time to research.

My cousin married a man in turkey, a Muslim with deep beliefs. She is Christian from birth but not a believer, they later on also married in a Christian church with a black man from Africa as priest. They now live here in Sweden with their 2 children. Selamettin (his name) is one of the nicest humans I have ever met. He say that any terrorist that use Islam as a excuse for killing is not a real Muslim. He also is confident that some Americans allowed 9/11 to happen, maybe even plan for it to happen.

So I got interested and started researching and I'm not nearly done yet. Just want to say that this forum is sure to drive alot more people towards conspiracy than to official explanations.

A big thanks to T.A.M and others providing links in a helpful manner, rest of you should maybe focus less on critical thinking and more on manners towards other humans.

Dave Rogers
16th January 2009, 03:04 AM
MaterialismSlave, I think you've described what can be a very real problem with this forum. Unfortunately, it's not entirely our fault. There is a frequently observed phenomenon on the forum: a new poster registers, makes an introductory post saying something along the lines of "I've never really bought into the 9/11 conspiracy theories, but there's this one video I wondered if anyone could debunk?", and within about ten posts has somehow shifted position to "You're all government agents, anyone can see 9/11 was an inside job, and I rule for pointing it out!" A few posts later the new member turns out to be yet another sockpuppet of a particularly obnoxious banned former member by the name of Paul Doherty, who seems to find this behaviour an unending source of amusement. The regrettable result is that we have a tendency to be excessively suspicious of new members who claim to be looking for debunking of a specific source.

I'd also take issue with the belittlement of everyone on the forum that's implicit in your OP, "I have been searching the debunk part of the forum but they all seem to focus on the extreme conspiracies made up by children," which carries the clear suggestion that we are deliberately focusing on the more easily debunked theories. Let me remind you that these "children" include Steven Jones, a physics professor with over 20 years' research experience; James Fetzer, an emeritus professor of philosophy; and David Ray Griffin, a retired professor of religion and philosophy. Deluded, intellectually dishonest and inappropriately qualified they may be, but they are hardly children.

If you want polite replies, a slightly more polite introduction would serve you well.

Dave

MaterialismSlave
16th January 2009, 03:16 AM
I'd also take issue with the belittlement of everyone on the forum that's implicit in your OP, "I have been searching the debunk part of the forum but they all seem to focus on the extreme conspiracies made up by children," which carries the clear suggestion that we are deliberately focusing on the more easily debunked theories. Let me remind you that these "children" include Steven Jones, a physics professor with over 20 years' research experience; James Fetzer, an emeritus professor of philosophy; and David Ray Griffin, a retired professor of religion and philosophy. Deluded, intellectually dishonest and inappropriately qualified they may be, but they are hardly children.

If you want polite replies, a slightly more polite introduction would serve you well.

Dave

Yes that was a bad introduction and I apologize. I had searched the web for debunks of conspiracy and got a bit annoyed that everything I managed to find was either as badly written as most CT and mostly found things that focused on the outrageous conspiracy parts that to me only a immature mind can post as proof.

So I got tired of going thru lots of obvious debunks and earlier I had been recommended to this forum. So I went here after watching Rupperts DSH where I found some things hard to shrug off.

Im thinking now that no matter on how much I search there is always contradictions to both stories. Its to much of "random timely events" that benefit the conspiracy for my mind to say either side is the truth. So for my own sake I rather put this away with the mindset that it may or may not be a conspiracy. Nothing is reversible in any case. Will just follow the news and see how Obama deal with the middle east in the future. This war on terror has blown out of proportion, USA give terrorists way to much publicity. They are a minor group that see themselves as freedom fighters and I hope USA wont act in a way that endangers millions of innocents in the hunt for a minority in the coming years.

funk de fino
16th January 2009, 03:21 AM
Well, the US didn't specifically steal Iraq's oil. As in go get it and ship it back. But who really controls those oil fields now?

Not the US.

JoeyDonuts
16th January 2009, 05:02 AM
Yes that was a bad introduction and I apologize. I had searched the web for debunks of conspiracy and got a bit annoyed that everything I managed to find was either as badly written as most CT and mostly found things that focused on the outrageous conspiracy parts that to me only a immature mind can post as proof.

So I got tired of going thru lots of obvious debunks and earlier I had been recommended to this forum. So I went here after watching Rupperts DSH where I found some things hard to shrug off.

Im thinking now that no matter on how much I search there is always contradictions to both stories. Its to much of "random timely events" that benefit the conspiracy for my mind to say either side is the truth. So for my own sake I rather put this away with the mindset that it may or may not be a conspiracy. Nothing is reversible in any case. Will just follow the news and see how Obama deal with the middle east in the future. This war on terror has blown out of proportion, USA give terrorists way to much publicity. They are a minor group that see themselves as freedom fighters and I hope USA wont act in a way that endangers millions of innocents in the hunt for a minority in the coming years.

Unfortunately, from what I can tell, the knee-jerk reaction from many debunkers here is to browbeat new users like yourself with a salvo of "That's already been debunked" and a string of thinly veiled insults. There is a lot of pseudoscience and troll-like behavior on this particular sub-forum from folks that believe 9/11 is a conspiracy. If you felt that way, I apologize. However your OP did seem a little aggressive towards the skeptics here...so you shouldn't be surprised at some of the defensive attitudes. Some of the debunking crowd here can be quite vitriolic, which I'm not really okay with.

One thing you'll find about us is that for the most part, we try to be respectful and not degenerate into namecalling and ad hominems. That's not to say it doesn't happen sometimes, but the vast majority of folks posting here don't behave that way. There's a wide open-door policy for dissenting opinions here. Even though we may give them a harsh treatment, we don't just squash them right off the bat by deleting the threads and banning the users that started them - behavior you'll find on just about every Truth Movement forum.

Anyway, welcome to the forums. . .there's a lot more going on here than just discussion of 9/11. I'd encourage you to check out some of the other forums. You might get to know some of us a little better and from my experience it's easier to approach a debate from the right angle that way.

MaterialismSlave
16th January 2009, 05:51 AM
Anyway, welcome to the forums. . .there's a lot more going on here than just discussion of 9/11. I'd encourage you to check out some of the other forums. You might get to know some of us a little better and from my experience it's easier to approach a debate from the right angle that way.

I have been reading some other forums and it seems to be a more reasonable tone in those.

I suppose you who live in US and are surrounded by kids going out on the streets parading something you take as unimaginable is cumbersome, so I can understand some of the frustration people show.

Dr Adequate
16th January 2009, 06:53 AM
Yes, we may have got off on the wrong foot.

But what you have to realise is that unless some Truther movie or website has a big following among Truthers, then no-one's going to bother to go through that particular movie or website point by point and line by line. I mean, there's zillions of them. And they're all rehashing the same points that were discredited back in 2004.

What we mostly do is shoot down specific Truther arguments.

If you will say something along the lines of: "I saw this movie, and the 5 best points in it were these: (and then you list the 5 best points)" then we'll shoot 'em down.

But we can't fuss after every darn video and website making the same dumb points over and over, or we'd never get anything done.

VespaGuy
16th January 2009, 07:09 AM
I suppose you who live in US and are surrounded by kids going out on the streets parading something you take as unimaginable is cumbersome, so I can understand some of the frustration people show.

Just to be clear, I am in the US and I have never run into a single person who believes that 9/11 was an inside job. Not once. I also live in the subrubs of a busy college town that I frequent - I have never seen a parade, a gathering, or even a lone nut on a corner supporting the 9/11 conspiracies. Not a single time.

Are there small groups of kids in the US who vocalize their beliefs? Sure. They are an insignificantly small minority of the US population. As far as I know, nobody is 'surrounded' by parading kids.

The frustration people show has much more to do with the behaviour mentioned above: Dishonest new members who are conspiracy theorist masquarading as a neutral observers.

DGM
16th January 2009, 07:15 AM
I have been reading some other forums and it seems to be a more reasonable tone in those.

I suppose you who live in US and are surrounded by kids going out on the streets parading something you take as unimaginable is cumbersome, so I can understand some of the frustration people show.

Actually what you describe here would be a rare occurrence. The "truth" movement as a whole has very little public presence. We often say if you want them to disappear just log off the internet. In fact I live just outside a major US city (Boston, Mass) and have never seen any sign of them.

However on this forum we have seen our share of posters who come in claiming to be neutral and turn out to have already made up their minds. Be open about what you want (and think) and you'll do fine here.

Drudgewire
16th January 2009, 07:25 AM
I have been reading some other forums and it seems to be a more reasonable tone in those.

I suppose you who live in US and are surrounded by kids going out on the streets parading something you take as unimaginable is cumbersome, so I can understand some of the frustration people show.


As Vespa Guy just said, it's a lot more of an internet sensation than an actual movement. Like everything else about truthers, when gauging their importance they rarely let things like facts get in the way of their reality.

I'd also like to mention that in the world of 9/11 truth, we aren't considered a source of alternative answers, we are considered THE ENEMY. In one of their polls the JREF was considered more evil than Cheney when it comes to advancing the "lie of the official story." As a result, we seem to be the front line for the "just asking questions" crowd who present themselves as curiosity seekers as a pretext for being argumentative and trollish. Over the last few years, it has made us a little gunshy, especially when it comes to topics we've answered time and time again.

Anyway, welcome to JREF and enjoy your stay. As you come to understand our protocol, you'll find out we really enjoy giving real answers more than just being jerks ready to attack and take cheap shots.











Well, most of us anyway.













:whistling

BigAl
16th January 2009, 07:53 AM
Actually what you describe here would be a rare occurrence. The "truth" movement as a whole has very little public presence. We often say if you want them to disappear just log off the internet. In fact I live just outside a major US city (Boston, Mass) and have never seen any sign of them.

I'm in Staten Island, a suburb of Manhattan and with the highest concentration of WTC first-responders and the families of victims of 9/11. To this day, new cars get new "in memory of ..." stickers and and streets are being renamed for firemen that died on 9/11. I know two that were involved. I've met countless others.

There is no "truth movement" here. The only scandal is survivor's benefits and lifetime care for people that breathed the air at WTC. The "Truth Movement" tries to hijack these issues to pretend that the families support Truther claims.

skepticalcriticalguy
16th January 2009, 08:27 AM
I have been reading some other forums and it seems to be a more reasonable tone in those.

I suppose you who live in US and are surrounded by kids going out on the streets parading something you take as unimaginable is cumbersome, so I can understand some of the frustration people show.

I live in the US. I've even been to truther rallies. But if you think there are "kids marching in the streets" over here, it's nothing like that. Although I haven't been on a college campus lately, I don't even think it's happening there.

skepticalcriticalguy
16th January 2009, 08:31 AM
I'd also like to mention that in the world of 9/11 truth, we aren't considered a source of alternative answers, we are considered THE ENEMY. In one of their polls the JREF was considered more evil than Cheney when it comes to advancing the "lie of the official story."



Somebody tried to warn me off of checking out the JREF a couple years ago when I became interested in reading debunks (and debunks of debunks, and...). He told me "I wouldn't go there; it's worse than being Hannitized."

:eek:

skepticalcriticalguy
16th January 2009, 08:51 AM
Hello everyone.

I recently watched Michael Rupperts "Denial Stops Here", and I am looking for debunks on this movie.

I have been searching the debunk part of the forum but they all seem to focus on the extreme conspiracies made up by children, so if you could point me to any site or movie that deals with the real issues I would be grateful.

You could read Ruppert's "Crossing The Rubicon," which was possibly the first mainstream book that dealt with 9/11 inside job. It's long. Interesting. Ruppert does concentrate more on the "peak oil" thing, to the point where that became his agenda, and he pretty much removed himself from the truth movement.

You can also read David Ray Griffin's books "The New Pearl Harbor," "The 9/11 Comission: Omissions and Distortions," and "Debunking 9/11 Debunking." None of which were actually read by most of the people here, I would guess.

The most interesting one is Webster Tarpley's "9/11: Synthetic Terror Made In The USA." Tarpley's view is that 9/11 wasn't so much a Bush/Cheney crime as an intelligence agency/military-industrial criminal coup that took control of the US military and government that day.

Read those, and as you do, check for debunks. YOU decide whether you think the debunk is cogent and legitimate. If you ask questions here, you will be told you are "JAQing off." (Just Asking Questions = JAQing. Clever). So might want to just read the debunking papers that are posted here at the forum.

Now, I'm leaving for a vacation in a few minutes, so won't be around to read all the insults sure to be hurled my way. So don't bother writing them.

Oh, and expect a certain poster with extremely bad grammer and spelling and manners to tell you that "Griffin lies! Tarpley lies! All hearsay, no proof! NO FACTS!!!"

You decide what you believe. And remember; most crimes that have been committed in the world have not been discovered, or proven. (But "skeptics" would probably disagree).

Drudgewire
16th January 2009, 08:56 AM
He told me "I wouldn't go there; it's worse than being Hannitized."

:eek:


Which, as we all know, is much worse than your soul being psychedelicized. :cool:

kbm99
16th January 2009, 11:10 AM
Just to be clear, I am in the US and I have never run into a single person who believes that 9/11 was an inside job. Not once. I also live in the subrubs of a busy college town that I frequent - I have never seen a parade, a gathering, or even a lone nut on a corner supporting the 9/11 conspiracies. Not a single time.

Are there small groups of kids in the US who vocalize their beliefs? Sure. They are an insignificantly small minority of the US population. As far as I know, nobody is 'surrounded' by parading kids.


"Surrounded" is not the right word, but - a former co-worker, my current boss, and at least one member of the IT community where I work are all squarely in the MIHOP crowd. In the months leading up to the election, it was not uncommon to see "911 Truth" or "Investigate 911" or something similar scrawled in chalk on the sidewalks around campus, and I pass someone wearing some variant of "911 Truth" on a T-Shirt weekly or so.

So, "surrounded" is not accurate, but I wouldn't have to work very hard to find a Truther if for some mad reason I wanted to discuss it with a CTer. My boss & I get along well enough otherwise, so I've developed a few tried & true tactics for deflecting the conversation if the subject comes up. Luckily he's not otherwise around the bend (that I've noticed) aside from being a tad paranoid.

Of course, this is pure anecdote, but so is VespaGuy's statement that he's never run across someone who thinks 9/11 was an inside job.

beachnut
16th January 2009, 12:40 PM
You could read Ruppert's "Crossing The Rubicon," which was possibly the first mainstream book that dealt with 9/11 inside job. It's long. Interesting. Ruppert does concentrate more on the "peak oil" thing, to the point where that became his agenda, and he pretty much removed himself from the truth movement.
For those who lack knowledge, they will not be able to use sound judgment to see Ruppert makes up all his 9/11 ideas. Pure BS. Good for me you canít support any of his 9/11 tripe with evidence. Make the only thing you can do is go on vacation, cause you canít support this BS.

You can also read David Ray Griffin's books "The New Pearl Harbor," "The 9/11 Comission: Omissions and Distortions," and "Debunking 9/11 Debunking." None of which were actually read by most of the people here, I would guess.
DRG, yes the expert hearsay master. He get very little correct on 9/11 and has conclusions clearly delusional. Again, you can't support any of DRG's conclusions on 911, so vacation is a great option so you don't have to prove again you have nothing. While you pack you can try to pick one thing DRG has on 9/11 that is correct. No. Thought so.

The most interesting one is Webster Tarpley's "9/11: Synthetic Terror Made In The USA." Tarpley's view is that 9/11 wasn't so much a Bush/Cheney crime as an intelligence agency/military-industrial criminal coup that took control of the US military and government that day.
It is impossible for you to support Tarpley's ideas on 9/11 with evidence. So vacation is the best option.

Read those, and as you do, check for debunks. YOU decide whether you think the debunk is cogent and legitimate. If you ask questions here, you will be told you are "JAQing off." (Just Asking Questions = JAQing. Clever). So might want to just read the debunking papers that are posted here at the forum.
Sounds like you think if the book sound good, if the arguments make your biased brain fell good, you believe them. How sad to have someone who canít support any of the books he presents with cogent thoughts and evidence. 7 years evidence free, so vacation is the only thing you can do to support these books of 9/11 woo.

I am not trying to debunk these books, they are delusional on 9/11; save the political opinions expressed they are worthless pieces of fantasy on 9/11. This is why they are in the political section of the library not the science section. These books are good for the cult like mental state, which grow conspiracy theories with the slightest help from those who write books filled with moronic ideas on 9/11.

Vacation is all you can do, you have no evidence to support these books on their 9/11 fantasy ideas.


Now, I'm leaving for a vacation in a few minutes, so won't be around to read all the insults sure to be hurled my way. So don't bother writing them.
It is not an insult you can't support these author of 911 delusions with evidence. It is just a lack of evidence, a lack of knowledge, and a lack of sound judgment. No insult to be fooled by people who spew lies, hearsay, and delusions.

It is self-critiquing.

Oh, and expect a certain poster with extremely bad grammer and spelling and manners to tell you that "Griffin lies! Tarpley lies! All hearsay, no proof! NO FACTS!!!"
You can go on vacation, you have correctly summarized the guys who spread false ideas about 9/11.


You decide what you believe. And remember; most crimes that have been committed in the world have not been discovered, or proven. (But "skeptics" would probably disagree).
7 years, and the proof these books are pure BS Ė No Pulitzer Prize.

No evidence, no Pulitzer Prize. Have a great vacation.

It is no insult to be fooled by these BS artists; it is self-critiquing.

JoeyDonuts
16th January 2009, 04:58 PM
I'd have to agree about the 9/11 truth movement being more of an Internet meme than an actual physical movement. Their war against the evil American Neo-Conservative Zionist Enabling EmpireTM seems to begin and end on their keyboard.

Sure there will always be fringe groups here and there that believe and will always believe 9/11 was an internal U.S. government conspiracy and cover-up. There's also a Flat Earth Society and snake handling churches. These also represent a small fraction of the U.S. population. 9/11 Truth seemed to have more traction when Pres. Bush's approval ratings first scraped the bottom of the barrel, but most of those folks have since moved on to something more productive. What really bothers me is that it's become a money making scheme for badly produced DVD's.

~enigma~
16th January 2009, 05:12 PM
I'd have to agree about the 9/11 truth movement being more of an Internet meme than an actual physical movement. Their war against the evil American Neo-Conservative Zionist Enabling EmpireTM seems to begin and end on their keyboard.

Sure there will always be fringe groups here and there that believe and will always believe 9/11 was an internal U.S. government conspiracy and cover-up. There's also a Flat Earth Society and snake handling churches. These also represent a small fraction of the U.S. population. 9/11 Truth seemed to have more traction when Pres. Bush's approval ratings first scraped the bottom of the barrel, but most of those folks have since moved on to something more productive. What really bothers me is that it's become a money making scheme for badly produced DVD's.
At least the snake handling churches are consistent with the bible. Flat Earth believers are inconsistent with logic and science.

stateofgrace
16th January 2009, 05:13 PM
You can also read David Ray Griffin's books "The New Pearl Harbor," "The 9/11 Comission: Omissions and Distortions," and "Debunking 9/11 Debunking." None of which were actually read by most of the people here, I would guess.


Yep, you could read this guys books, I am lead to believe he as published a total of seven on this topic to date.

Any idea how many people who were actually involved in this event he interviewed and/or contributed to his books?

I am lead to believe it is between 0 and 2.

Or you could actually read a well researched, historically correct, Pulitzer Prize winning book by Lawrence Wright called “The Looming Tower”.

Any idea how many people who were actually involved in this event he interviewed and/or contributed to his book?

I am lead to believe it is between 300 and 500.

dtugg
16th January 2009, 05:25 PM
It (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4351153&postcount=1276) is a proven fraudulent piece of scum. The only purpose its seven books serve is to pay for its retirement. If one is stupid and delusional one might be duped by it.

Whiplash
16th January 2009, 05:34 PM
I do so very love the way the people who believe in the "inside job" always (and I mean always), upon joining the forum, do everything they can to present themselves as some honest, middle of the road average Joe who is "investigating 9-11 from both sides". Yes, of course you are.

It's a clear attempt to manipulate people into thinking you may be more reasonable or open minded than you are. It's a clear attempt to present a mindset that there are normal, everyday people who question the facts, and imply it's quite reasonable for people to do so. It's a clear attempt to give far more credibility than is deserved to beliefs and theories that are not even remotely reasonable or realistic anymore.. and are only held onto by nuts and charlatans.

It's so transparent. I don't know why people think that no one can see through it.

MaterialismSlave
17th January 2009, 12:02 AM
I do so very love the way the people who believe in the "inside job" always (and I mean always), upon joining the forum, do everything they can to present themselves as some honest, middle of the road average Joe who is "investigating 9-11 from both sides". Yes, of course you are.

It's a clear attempt to manipulate people into thinking you may be more reasonable or open minded than you are. It's a clear attempt to present a mindset that there are normal, everyday people who question the facts, and imply it's quite reasonable for people to do so. It's a clear attempt to give far more credibility than is deserved to beliefs and theories that are not even remotely reasonable or realistic anymore.. and are only held onto by nuts and charlatans.

It's so transparent. I don't know why people think that no one can see through it.

So what you are saying is that you are a bit paranoid? I guess rabid conspiracy theorists dont have that emotion under copyright laws.

If with "normal everyday people question the facts" you are referring to Selamettin, its all true. Its not odd tho since in turkey the news reflect the Muslims beliefs and its from there he got the idea of a inside job. Turkish TV actually promote that idea as far as I understand it. While American TV promote the idea of the terrorists that outsmarted them. I lean more towards the American version but if Selamettin is any indicator on how things are in other Muslim countries then many Muslims think 911 was staged.

Arus808
17th January 2009, 12:20 AM
Can we GET THIS thread BACK on topic?

MaterialismSlave, you've had 2 pages of opportunities to answer the question that has been put to you several times about this film


WHAT points in the film did you NEED clarification on? Specifically what sparked your interest in the film to come here and join to ask us about it/

You are now derailing your own thread.

MaterialismSlave
17th January 2009, 09:06 AM
Can we GET THIS thread BACK on topic?

MaterialismSlave, you've had 2 pages of opportunities to answer the question that has been put to you several times about this film


WHAT points in the film did you NEED clarification on? Specifically what sparked your interest in the film to come here and join to ask us about it/

You are now derailing your own thread.

I did post 3 questions in my 3rd reply to this topic on the first page, actually before your first post on the topic.
Some of these was somewhat addressed in this thread. NORAD was addressed, war for oil didn't get much attention. Officials saying that they don't want to focus on getting the men behind the scenes on 911 wasn't addressed, that wasn't a DST specific question tho.

wouldn't mind some info that dissect his theories on war for oil.
Also a explanation to how the most paranoid industrial country can set themselves in a position to be more or less fully exposed to attacks thanks to ongoing WARGAMES?
Finally, why do officials say that "its not important to find the men behind 911" in some interviews?

Adding the supposed 25 warnings that 911 was incoming that he claim to have documented, and the reason for canceling some of the FBI investigations on some of the terrorists.

Anyway I rather leave this behind me, but I wouldn't mind having these debunked since it would leave my mind more at peace. As I said in earlier post I don't think I ever will be fully convinced in any scenario and my wife is getting annoyed at me devouring these materials instead of spending time with the family.

firecoins
17th January 2009, 09:56 AM
Seems to me that many in this topic is just a bunch of people with superiority complex, Do you really think that your attitude will benefit you or your points of view in any way?Our point of view is based of facts. Our attitude is from dealing with people who refuse to do so. We are tired of debunking things over and over again.


I concluded that Ruppert is not a good source for info. I just got into this 911 thing, I live in Sweden so I haven't been that interested in 911 as its just as distant as a murder or bombing in middle east to me.I live in NYC. 9/11 was an event that affected me.

I have work and a son thats 8 months that takes alot of my time and thats why I dont have time to research.
Read the 9/11 report. Thats all you need to know.


My cousin married a man in turkey, a Muslim with deep beliefs. She is Christian from birth but not a believer, they later on also married in a Christian church with a black man from Africa as priest. They now live here in Sweden with their 2 children. Selamettin (his name) is one of the nicest humans I have ever met. He say that any terrorist that use Islam as a excuse for killing is not a real Muslim. He also is confident that some Americans allowed 9/11 to happen, maybe even plan for it to happen.
Read the 9/11 report and have him read it. There were American government failures. It should have been prevented but due to incompitance, it wasn't. It was with out a doubt not a US government conspiracy.

beachnut
17th January 2009, 02:11 PM
... then many Muslims think 911 was staged. Darn, they are wrong. 19 terrorist did it. Stop being gullible.

T.A.M.
17th January 2009, 02:39 PM
I ask what you experienced debunkers think is the good debunk movies/sites.
I don't have time to go thru them all.

This was covered, the link I gave you and others has a HUGE amount of info to read.



I haven't decided what is real, wouldn't mind some info that dissect his theories on war for oil.

You will not likely find much argument on this point actually. Most posters (not all) tend to believe that Middle East Oil played SOME role in the aggression we have seen courtesy of the BUSH admin over the last 8 years.

Iraq - yes, in part oil was a factor.
Afghanistan - a tough argument to make there. There is not pipeline (tripe), so how is this country connected to America's quest for oil?



Also a explanation to how the most paranoid industrial country can set themselves in a position to be more or less fully exposed to attacks thanks to ongoing WARGAMES?

1. Most paranoid???

2. Would you suggest they not conduct WARGAMES? If your premise is that they were caught off guard because of Wargames, then the only solution would be to never have Wargames again, as another terrorist attack could occur any day, and what if they were running wargames on that day as well?

Also, the Wargames had LITTLE TO NO effect on the response that day. READ THE ACCOUNTS of the Norad response that day. Look up a thread on NORAD here at JREF started and written up by a user named "gumboot".


Finally, why do officials say that "its not important to find the men behind 911" in some interviews?

please cite the interviews in question, so I may read, IN CONTEXT, what exactly was said.

Thanks

TAM:)

MaterialismSlave
17th January 2009, 03:13 PM
Darn, they are wrong. 19 terrorist did it. Stop being gullible.

How am I gullible by saying that I think many Muslims believe 9/11 was staged? I'm not saying I think it was staged, I'm saying that maybe a large part of the world that are muslins think so. You only quoted half the sentence.

Anyway I only base this on what I have heard from a man that comes from a small part of Turkey and is in no way a spokesman for Muslims worldwide, its not like I was trying to prove anything just stating a possibility.


To T.A.M:

About the officials saying that finding the man behind the operation wasn't important I will have to come back later, don't remember exactly where i saw the interview.

NORAD was addressed

NORAD and wargames had been addressed previous so no need to focus energy on that.
And yes my picture of US is that it is more paranoid than any country in Europe at least. You have always had a enemy "at your doorsteps" but more or less never been attacked for 100 years now.

I guess Sweden has to little paranoia, around 10% of our population are immigrants from Europe. Around 20% are immigrants from outside of Europe, mostly Middle east victims of war.

Some 79,200 Iraqis now live in Sweden, making them the second-largest group of immigrants behind Finns, who number 181,600.

Source (http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2006/12/sweden-top-address-for-iraqi-refugees.html)

Since the program began last spring, a total of 26,904 Iraqi individuals have been referred for resettlement to the USRAP. USCIS has interviewed a total of 16,949 Iraqi refugees, and a total of 5,763 Iraqi refugees have been welcomed to the U.S. as of May 14, 2008.

Source (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=e40fddeebc2f9110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=f25faca797e63110VgnVCM1000004718190a RCRD)

We are a very small country with a ~10 million population and still the top in helping the victims of war, we have more immigrants of different religions in some cities that swedes.
One would think we would be under constant war here since we shelter people from all around the world with opposing religions, but so far we haven't seen one act of terrorism as far as I know.

Alt+F4
17th January 2009, 03:15 PM
How am I gullible by saying that I think many Muslims believe 9/11 was staged?

Staged how?

BigAl
17th January 2009, 03:18 PM
This was covered, the link I gave you and others has a HUGE amount of info to read.
...

Afghanistan - a tough argument to make there. There is not pipeline (tripe), so how is this country connected to America's quest for oil?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline

The Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline (TAP or TAPI) is a proposed natural gas pipeline being developed by the Asian Development Bank. The pipeline will transport Caspian Sea natural gas from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan into Pakistan and then to India. Proponents of the project see it as a modern continuation of the Silk Road. The Afghan government is expected to receive 8% of the project's revenue.

MaterialismSlave
17th January 2009, 03:31 PM
Staged how?

I bet they have as many ideas about that as there are people believing it.

beachnut
17th January 2009, 04:04 PM
Hello everyone.

I recently watched Michael Rupperts "Denial Stops Here", and I am looking for debunks on this movie.

I have been searching the debunk part of the forum but they all seem to focus on the extreme conspiracies made up by children, so if you could point me to any site or movie that deals with the real issues I would be grateful.

Do you really want to debunk this tripe? If so you would be helping.

Like presenting the exact topic you think is valid or you need help on.

The big picture; Ruppert has nut bat crazy ideas on 9/11.

MaterialismSlave
17th January 2009, 04:12 PM
Do you really want to debunk this tripe? If so you would be helping.

Like presenting the exact topic you think is valid or you need help on.

The big picture; Ruppert has nut bat crazy ideas on 9/11.

Just read the thread.

I did post 3 questions in my 3rd reply to this topic on the first page, actually before your first post on the topic.
Some of these was somewhat addressed in this thread. NORAD was addressed, war for oil didn't get much attention. Officials saying that they don't want to focus on getting the men behind the scenes on 911 wasn't addressed, that wasn't a DST specific question tho.



Adding the supposed 25 warnings that 911 was incoming that he claim to have documented, and the reason for canceling some of the FBI investigations on some of the terrorists.

Anyway I rather leave this behind me, but I wouldn't mind having these debunked since it would leave my mind more at peace. As I said in earlier post I don't think I ever will be fully convinced in any scenario and my wife is getting annoyed at me devouring these materials instead of spending time with the family.

stateofgrace
17th January 2009, 04:21 PM
Just read the thread.

Maybe you could do the same and take the repeated advice from members who have urged you to state exactly what your problem is and state exactly what you have an issue with.

Simply posting a video and demanding it be debunking is pointless. State exactly what parts of the video you support or have issue with; explain why and then maybe you will get something called debate. Until then you will get what you have received.

Please do so in your next post.

beachnut
17th January 2009, 04:21 PM
Just read the thread.
I missed it, you are right now you see Ruppert's ideas on 9/11 are garbage. Sorry.

MaterialismSlave
17th January 2009, 04:33 PM
Maybe you could do the same and take the repeated advice from members who have urged you to state exactly what your problem is and state exactly what you have an issue with.

Simply posting a video and demanding it be debunking is pointless. State exactly what parts of the video you support or have issue with; explain why and then maybe you will get something called debate. Until then you will get what you have received.

Please do so in your next post.
I have learned in the progress of this 80+ reply topic that I should do so if I ever need a debunk in the future, your post just shows that you haven't been following the discussion.

I can edit my first post to include all my other posts in this thread if you like.

stateofgrace
17th January 2009, 04:37 PM
I have learned in the progress of this 80+ reply topic that I should do so if I ever need a debunk in the future, your post just shows that you haven't been following the discussion.

I can edit my first post to include all my other posts in this thread if you like.

Or maybe you could state your point, before everybody dies of boredom.

MaterialismSlave
17th January 2009, 04:47 PM
Or maybe you could state your point, before everybody dies of boredom.

I have already quoted the original questions once, I wont do it again. Just leave this topic if you cant bother to read it all.

T.A.M.
17th January 2009, 04:52 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline

lol

I know there are plans for one, I meant there CURRENTLY is no pipeline.

Thanks for the link.

TAM:)

stateofgrace
17th January 2009, 04:52 PM
I have already quoted the original questions once, I wont do it again. Just leave this topic if you cant bother to read it all.

I have read the thread and you have said nothing, other than "here is a video, debunk it".

Once again, take all the points from the video that you feel are relevant to any form of debate and state them, in doing so state why you feel they are important and why you wish to debate them.

On you go.

MaterialismSlave
17th January 2009, 05:04 PM
I have read the thread and you have said nothing, other than "here is a video, debunk it".

Once again, take all the points from the video that you feel are relevant to any form of debate and state them, in doing so state why you feel they are important and why you wish to debate them.

On you go.

I just concluded that you have some sort of reading comprehension troubles and decided to ignore you.

stateofgrace
17th January 2009, 05:09 PM
I just concluded that you have some sort of reading comprehension troubles and decided to ignore you.

Of course you have. It is normally called being called out and being shown what an idiot you are but hey keep going pal, I will happily stand on the side lines while you continuity,painfully make a fool of yourself.

beachnut
17th January 2009, 05:14 PM
I just concluded that you have some sort of reading comprehension troubles and decided to ignore you.


You got the superiority complex thing backwards.
And your post is ironic; ignoring does not really include a post saying so.

So are you up to speed on the idiot ideas in the other video you think proves something? I don’t have time, I have my kids to spend time with and could use a simple, let you summarize the whole thing so I can spend time with the kids.

MaterialismSlave
17th January 2009, 05:23 PM
You got the superiority complex thing backwards.
And your post is ironic; ignoring does not really include a post saying so.

So are you up to speed on the idiot ideas in the other video you think proves something? I don’t have time, I have my kids to spend time with and could use a simple, let you summarize the whole thing so I can spend time with the kids.

stateofgrace keeps spamming the thread and wants me to type something I already typed 2 times. Hes obviously trying to get me pissed off so I will ignore him instead. I dont see that at superiority complex at all.

Anyway I never said I see this stuff as proof, just things I want to see a different point of view on. And no I havent looked after the interview yet.

By all means go be with your kids, I never tried to keep you here.

Homeland Insurgency
17th January 2009, 05:23 PM
I have read the thread and you have said nothing, other than "here is a video, debunk it".

Well if even that was all he did then what's the problem? For a bunch of people proclaiming to be debunkers it's funny how some get so offended when they're actually asked to point out how something has been debunked.

stateofgrace
17th January 2009, 05:27 PM
Well if even that was all he did then what's the problem? For a bunch of people proclaiming to be debunkers it's funny how some get so offended when they're actually asked to point out how something has been debunked.

Who said I was a debunker? You?

Maybe you could summarise the main points of the video and why they are so important.

For some strange reason, I doubt you will.

beachnut
17th January 2009, 05:34 PM
stateofgrace keeps spamming the thread and wants me to type something I already typed 2 times. Hes obviously trying to get me pissed off so I will ignore him instead. I dont see that at superiority complex at all.

Anyway I never said I see this stuff as proof, just things I want to see a different point of view on. And no I havent looked after the interview yet.

By all means go be with your kids, I never tried to keep you here.

You are still protecting the terrorist apologists with the different point of view idea. They are not different points of view, they are lies. You presented works with lies, easy to see lies in them and you needed help and now you slam people who are not fooled by liars like you have been.

Now HI is here to save you, he loves "different points of view" (lies) and believes the lies and the liars from 911Truth. Ruppert sells books with lies in them. HI believes them.

Your different views from 911Truth are hearsay, lies and fantasy.

You want to debate fantasy? Those are the different views you asked about.

stateofgrace
17th January 2009, 05:38 PM
stateofgrace keeps spamming the thread and wants me to type something I already typed 2 times. Hes obviously trying to get me pissed off so I will ignore him instead. I dont see that at superiority complex at all.

Anyway I never said I see this stuff as proof, just things I want to see a different point of view on. And no I havent looked after the interview yet.

By all means go be with your kids, I never tried to keep you here.


I am not spamming this thread; I have asked you a simple and precise question. You have failed to answer, so I will ask it again.

Can you please, state the main points of the video you posted and why you feel they are worthy of debate?

MaterialismSlave
17th January 2009, 05:42 PM
You are still protecting the terrorist apologists with the different point of view idea. They are not different points of view, they are lies. You presented works with lies, easy to see lies in them and you needed help and now you slam people who are not fooled by liars like you have been.

Now HI is here to save you, he loves "different points of view" (lies) and believes the lies and the liars from 911Truth. Ruppert sells books with lies in them. HI believes them.

Your different views from 911Truth are hearsay, lies and fantasy.

You want to debate fantasy? Those are the different views you asked about.

To settle your mind I went and searched for the source of this "not important to find the men behind 911" thing. Also please enlighten me about where I "slam people who are not fooled by liars".

Yet neither Ahmed nor Omar appears to have been sought for questioning by the US about 9/11. Indeed, the official 9/11 Commission Report of July 2004 sought to downplay the role of Pakistan with the comment: ‘To date, the US government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance’—a statement of breathtaking disingenuousness.”

Source (http://www.williambowles.info/spysrus/77_ss.html)

Anyway a Liar is a person that knows the truth and tells a lie, a misinformed person is not a liar.
The person that sparked my 9/11 interest was not telling lies, he was telling his version of the truth, and I doubt I will change his mind by saying "Its all lies, hearsay and fantasy you ignorant tool".

Homeland Insurgency
17th January 2009, 05:42 PM
Who said I was a debunker? You?

Nope. Won't catch me doing that.

Maybe you could summarise the main points of the video and why they are so important.

What do I look like to you? Cliff notes?

For some strange reason, I doubt you will.

What so strange about the fact that I'm not your tutor?

stateofgrace
17th January 2009, 05:49 PM
Nope. Won't catch me doing that.
What do I look like to you? Cliff notes?
What so strange about the fact that I'm not your tutor?

I take it you will not be summarising this video then?

I take it you will simply defend something you have not even seen in favour of making inconsequential snide remarks at those you label "debunkers".

It must be super cool to hate "debunkers", I wish I lived in your super cool dream world.

beachnut
17th January 2009, 05:52 PM
To settle your mind I went and searched for the source of this "not important to find the men behind 911" thing. Also please enlighten me about where I "slam people who are not fooled by liars".



Source (http://www.williambowles.info/spysrus/77_ss.html)

Anyway a Liar is a person that knows the truth and tells a lie, a misinformed person is not a liar.
The person that sparked my 9/11 interest was not telling lies, he was telling his version of the truth. This is funny, you post more junk. Cool. Need help on this, or do you like false ideas and hearsay?

Irony, you friend is spreading lies for others. Cool.

Homeland Insurgency
17th January 2009, 06:00 PM
I take it you will not be summarising this video then?

Not for you no.

I take you will simply defend something you have not even seen in favour of making inconsequential snide remarks at those you label "debunkers"

I don't just take anything. Iím not you. I know you will simply imply something is insignificant without even watching it. Or maybe you did watch it and proclaiming it insignificant is just your debunker defense mechanism for lack of anything else.

See how much I pay attention? You should try it sometime. Paying attention.

MaterialismSlave
17th January 2009, 06:00 PM
Beachnut you missed one question:

Also please enlighten me about where I "slam people who are not fooled by liars".

Also I edited the post you quoted in case you missed:

The person that sparked my 9/11 interest was not telling lies, he was telling his version of the truth, and I doubt I will change his mind by saying "Its all lies, hearsay and fantasy you ignorant tool".

I don't think your way is the way to go to convince people.

stateofgrace
17th January 2009, 06:11 PM
Not for you no.



I don't just take anything. I’m not you. I know you will simply imply something is insignificant without even watching it. Or maybe you did watch it and proclaiming it insignificant is just your debunker defense mechanism for lack of anything else.

See how much I pay attention? You should try it sometime. Paying attention.

When you have something to say that warrants attention you will get it. Until then, you are simply an entertainment I choose to spend a few hours with. I pay as much attention to the ranting and raving of a lunatic fringe as much as I pay attention to other insignificant factors in my life.

When this small, insignificant, fringe group actually says something that warrants attention rather than pity and mockery you will have my undivided attention. Until then I choose to amuse myself by spending a few hours pocking fun at and mocking those that spend countless hours, days, months, even years maintaining a fantasy.

Drudgewire
17th January 2009, 07:28 PM
I don't think your way is the way to go to convince people.


The facts should convince people. It's not our business to coddle those who choose to let paranoia and fantasy get in the way of them.

beachnut
17th January 2009, 09:37 PM
Beachnut you missed one question:



Also I edited the post you quoted in case you missed:



I don't think your way is the way to go to convince people.
Yes, telling your friend he lack knowledge and is gullible, the truth, is not good.

Like you, your friend can’t handle the truth that they may be dumber than dirt on 9/11 issues and fall for lies.

I agree, this is not a truth thing, it a touchy feely nice thing; just spread lies without evidence, how intelligent. How nice, blaming others for the work of murderers, 19 terrorists. I think terrorists apologists should be cuddled like little kids who lack knowledge and logic.



I have fallen for fraud, why are you and your friend different. Lift yourself out of the pit of pure stupid ideas on 9/11 and stop making excuses for terrorists.
I have found the cure for terminal stupidity is knowledge on a personal level; why are you and your friend different? Do you want to be fooled by other people?

What is wrong with knowledge? Is your friend worthless to leave behind in a pit of ignorance?

Do you prefer ignorance versus knowledge?

Arus808
17th January 2009, 11:39 PM
I still dont see a point by point list from Steve, of exactly what the video is about, and what points were in the video that he needs clarification on.

Slayhamlet
17th January 2009, 11:56 PM
And yes my picture of US is that it is more paranoid than any country in Europe at least. You have always had a enemy "at your doorsteps" but more or less never been attacked for 100 years now.

Are you so sure your own perception is entirely correct? I haven't heard of anyone declaring that there's been an "enemy at the doorsteps" since the Cuban missile crisis. And we have, of course, been attacked within the last 100 years, most prominently by the Japanese in 1941. 9/11 2001 was itself an attack of major significance, although it was not by a foreign nation's military. No, we haven't had a ground invasion in quite a long time, and I don't expect one again in the foreseeable future.

I guess Sweden has to little paranoia, around 10% of our population are immigrants from Europe. Around 20% are immigrants from outside of Europe, mostly Middle east victims of war.



Source (http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2006/12/sweden-top-address-for-iraqi-refugees.html)



Source (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=e40fddeebc2f9110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=f25faca797e63110VgnVCM1000004718190a RCRD)

We are a very small country with a ~10 million population and still the top in helping the victims of war, we have more immigrants of different religions in some cities that swedes.
One would think we would be under constant war here since we shelter people from all around the world with opposing religions, but so far we haven't seen one act of terrorism as far as I know.

I'm not sure what you're really arguing here. Why would you be "under constant war"? Just because you have a sizable Muslim minority? The threat of terrorism has overwhelmingly been from international terrorist organizations, not from U.S. citizens who happen to be Muslim. There's no internal threat to the United States from our own Muslim community (though there has been from the nut-cases of the homegrown "militia movement, as we saw in 1995). The UK has recently had some domestic terrorism within theirs that they've been dealing with, but not here.

KoihimeNakamura
18th January 2009, 12:17 AM
Tracing the money is ultimatly pointless because it only isolates those donors. There are many more UBL can tap into, so it's irrelevant which he tapped for this operation.

(You will note efforts are in force to try and shut down any of the networks he's dependent on for money, but..)

It's also simple. I know I don't have time to watch random movies, summarize the points, and then research each point. I work. I imagine others here do too. As such, a list of points are asked for that the movie raises so that it can speed up the process.

MaterialismSlave
18th January 2009, 12:39 AM
Tracing the money is ultimatly pointless because it only isolates those donors. There are many more UBL can tap into, so it's irrelevant which he tapped for this operation.

(You will note efforts are in force to try and shut down any of the networks he's dependent on for money, but..)

It's also simple. I know I don't have time to watch random movies, summarize the points, and then research each point. I work. I imagine others here do too. As such, a list of points are asked for that the movie raises so that it can speed up the process.

Ok, since so many seem to miss the post where I ask the questions and the 2 posts after where I quote those questions, here is a list with better formatting:

* How can the most paranoid industrial country have Wargames in such way that they interfere with national security. This was answered and no need to focus on this.

* Rupperts claim that Iraq invasion was because of oil.

* Why they say its not important to find the men behind the scenes of 9/11. You addressed this in the above post but I still think is very odd. Personally if I knew victims of 9/11 I would want to Isolate those donors and execute them on the spot.

* Some interviews and footage in DSH shows of FBI agents being called off investigations on 9/11 hijackers prior to 9/11.

*Rupperts claim of having documented 25 different warnings about danger of terrorists act on America prior to 9/11. While this thread has been going on I have found debunks for warnings, and doesn't feel this is a important question.

dtugg
18th January 2009, 03:18 AM
* Rupperts claim that Iraq invasion was because of oil.

Where is the oil? It's been damn near six years since the invasion of Iraq and more than seven since 9/11, and oil is still not pouring out of Iraq to the US. The US really isn't getting more oil from Iraq than it did before the war started. Canada, Saudi Arabia, and Mexico are the top suppliers of oil to the US. Furthermore, what does this even have to do with 9/11 conspiracy theories?


* Why they say its not important to find the men behind the scenes of 9/11. You addressed this in the above post but I still think is very odd. Personally if I knew victims of 9/11 I would want to Isolate those donors and execute them on the spot.

They said it's of little practical importance. It isn't really. Revenge doesn't really do any good except for (maybe) make people feel better. Let's say they do find out who gave al Qaeda the money used to fund the attacks and put them in Gitmo. So what? There are plenty of sources of funding and I doubt taking a few of them down would really do anything.

And I don't even think it is possible to trace the money. According to the 9/11 Commission, the attacks costs about $500,000. That isn't very much money. It could have come from anywhere.


* Some interviews and footage in DSH shows of FBI agents being called off investigations on 9/11 hijackers prior to 9/11.

I am not sure to what extent this is true. But hindsight is 20/20. And before 9/11, the FBI couldn't really do anything to people suspected of maybe being terrorists. They didn't even do anything illegal until the planes were hijacked.

BigAl
18th January 2009, 05:30 AM
* Some interviews and footage in DSH shows of FBI agents being called off investigations on 9/11 hijackers prior to 9/11.

*Rupperts claim of having documented 25 different warnings about danger of terrorists act on America prior to 9/11. While this thread has been going on I have found debunks for warnings, and doesn't feel this is a important question.

There were dozens or warnings. None of them were specific to time, place or method. Many of them were wrong. Until something happens, nobody knows which were accurate.

rwguinn
18th January 2009, 11:12 AM
I am not spamming this thread; I have asked you a simple and precise question. You have failed to answer, so I will ask it again.

Can you please, state the main points of the video you posted and why you feel they are worthy of debate?

So that materialismslave can see it and respond.
He doen't have time to research, but thinks we should view a waste of time video and re-re-re-debunk it all over again... (sorry, Yogi)

Pick a point--we'll respond

gnome
18th January 2009, 11:32 AM
* Rupperts claim that Iraq invasion was because of oil.

This could be true with or without a 9-11 conspiracy, so I don't really see that it helps the case. I happen to think oil politics is definitely involved but is not the only reason. Personally I think our administration hoped to put an end to a continuing thorn in the US's side, and at the same time have another government friendly to the US in a strategic position in the region. I should note that these are reasons to start a war that I disagree with vehemently, but I also think it's more complicated than just oil.

* Why they say its not important to find the men behind the scenes of 9/11.

This was an interesting statement, but I pay more attention to the country's behavior than its words. In fact the US has done a great deal to find and fight the men behind the scenes of 9-11. Even so, a misplaced priority is not evidence of a prior conspiracy.

* Some interviews and footage in DSH shows of FBI agents being called off investigations on 9/11 hijackers prior to 9/11.

This is an item worthy of further exploration as I see it... but again, not evidence of a conspiracy. There are many circumstances besides a 9-11 conspiracy that could lead to this.

A W Smith
18th January 2009, 11:47 AM
please explain the war for oil theory for me

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/01/02/business/ME-FIN-Iraq-Oil-Industry.php
Since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion that removed Saddam from power, Iraqi production has mostly hovered between 1.7 million and 2 million barrels per day, according to the International Energy Agency. It's prewar production was 2.58 million barrels per day

Dave Rogers
19th January 2009, 02:27 AM
And remember; most crimes that have been committed in the world have not been discovered, or proven. (But "skeptics" would probably disagree).

No, it's skeptics, not "skeptics", who would disagree. This unproven and undiscovered majority of crimes has not, by definition, left any evidence of its actual existence. We are therefore asked to believe on faith that the existence of an unknown majority of crimes is self-evident, and that the lack of evidence of these crimes is a suspicious circumstance. A true skeptic, rather than one who simply calls himself a skeptic, might ask, "If there's no evidence of these crimes having been committed, how do I know that they outnumber the discovered crimes?"

The above quote is a classic piece of conspiracist illogic.

Dave

KoihimeNakamura
19th January 2009, 02:36 AM
* Rupperts claim that Iraq invasion was because of oil.


Eh. I doubt it, although it probably has a kernel of truth. A lot of our policy in the Middle East is influenced by energy concerns.


* Why they say its not important to find the men behind the scenes of 9/11. You addressed this in the above post but I still think is very odd. Personally if I knew victims of 9/11 I would want to Isolate those donors and execute them on the spot.

Well. It's not a pragmatic thing. We do it for justice, but isolating the specific donors is hard and will not make us secure.

* Some interviews and footage in DSH shows of FBI agents being called off investigations on 9/11 hijackers prior to 9/11.

*Rupperts claim of having documented 25 different warnings about danger of terrorists act on America prior to 9/11. While this thread has been going on I have found debunks for warnings, and doesn't feel this is a important question.

Well. I can't speak to the first. I'd wager a reasonable explanation is lack of money for weak trails (the second is probably not enough to act on, but..)

DaN K. StAnLeY
20th January 2009, 11:16 PM
I'm sorry but I'm not buying this "MaterialismSlave" is for real. The dude came in here from the get-go with an attitude and all of these rehashed 9/11 theories. I'm calling BS on this guy. Just check out his previous posts and you'll see the "truthiness" all over them. Nice try SOCK!

Jonnyclueless
20th January 2009, 11:27 PM
I'm sorry but I'm not buying this "MaterialismSlave" is for real. The dude came in here from the get-go with an attitude and all of these rehashed 9/11 theories. I'm calling BS on this guy. Just check out his previous posts and you'll see the "truthiness" all over them. Nice try SOCK!

I'm sorry, are we supposed to be pretending that truthers who come on here pretending to be someone just doing honest research are for real? They become so cliche that I forget to pretend they aren't truthers.

Someone let me know if I should be pretending materialismslave isn't a truther.

MaterialismSlave
21st January 2009, 09:02 AM
I'm sorry but I'm not buying this "MaterialismSlave" is for real. The dude came in here from the get-go with an attitude and all of these rehashed 9/11 theories. I'm calling BS on this guy. Just check out his previous posts and you'll see the "truthiness" all over them. Nice try SOCK!

I'm sorry, are we supposed to be pretending that truthers who come on here pretending to be someone just doing honest research are for real? They become so cliche that I forget to pretend they aren't truthers.

Someone let me know if I should be pretending materialismslave isn't a truther.


I don't understand why you are so paranoid. Its almost as you are afraid of being influenced by these "thruthers".

This thread has served its purpose, which was to enlighten me, and should R.I.P.

What do you think my mission was if I was a "truther", and did I succeed in this conspiracy theory of yours? Because thats what it is, you think I am here as conspirator.

If you read my latest topic you will see that I have gone from believing in a 9/11 conspiracy to seeing it as a very unlikely scenario.

Anyway it was refreshing to see some conspiracy debunkers making their own conspiracy theories.


Here is my attempt of a debunk on your CT:
ALL my posts concern conspiracies of different sorts, especially 9/11. You may be interested in why? Because thats the whole reason I came to this board after having a conspiracy theory "awakening".

I was recommended here by a person who was against conspiracy theories in general that wanted to push me into a healthier direction.

My personal use for this board will be a kind of reality check, if I feel myself being dragged into a CT again I will come here to get your educated debunk. But that wont happen often, because I have gone into watching real science and tech documentaries now instead of CT. So most likely some upcoming threads and questions by me will be about conspiracy, but that doesn't make me a "(#&§% "truther".

DavidJames
21st January 2009, 09:12 AM
I don't understand why you are so paranoid. Its almost as you are afraid of being influenced by these "thruthers".

This thread has served its purpose, which was to enlighten me, and should R.I.P.

What do you think my mission was if I was a "truther", and did I succeed in this conspiracy theory of yours? Because thats what it is, you think I am here as conspirator.

If you read my latest topic you will see that I have gone from believing in a 9/11 conspiracy to seeing it as a very unlikely scenario.

Anyway it was refreshing to see some conspiracy debunkers making their own conspiracy theories.I've been watching the 9/11 CTists on this forum for about 5 years or so. Probably once a week (at least) someone will show up and post something not unlike what you did. They turned out to be full bore, hard core CTists pretending to be honestly seeking the truth.

Assuming what you say is true, and at this point I have no reason to doubt you, you have now doubled the number of those I just mentioned who actually were honest with their intentions.

That may not excuse those who make premature assumptions, but hopefully it helps you understand why.

MaterialismSlave
21st January 2009, 09:25 AM
I've been watching the 9/11 CTists on this forum for about 5 years or so. Probably once a week (at least) someone will show up and post something not unlike what you did. They turned out to be full bore, hard core CTists pretending to be honestly seeking the truth.

Assuming what you say is true, and at this point I have no reason to doubt you, you have now doubled the number of those I just mentioned who actually were honest with their intentions.

That may not excuse those who make premature assumptions, but hopefully it helps you understand why.

Yeah I get it, but its kind of annoying since I really don't feel like a truther and feel insulted in being named one :(

I'm a very late bloomer on 9/11 CT, its about 2 months old disease that I almost fully managed to get rid of now. So while this kind of posting have been going on for 5 years this is news to me.



Including my added edit that was made after your quote:

ALL my posts concern conspiracies of different sorts, especially 9/11. You may be interested in why? Because thats the whole reason I came to this board after having a conspiracy theory "awakening".

I was recommended here by a person who was against conspiracy theories in general that wanted to push me into a healthier direction.

My personal use for this board will be a kind of reality check, if I feel myself being dragged into a CT again I will come here to get your educated debunk. But that wont happen often, because I have gone into watching real science and tech documentaries now instead of CT. So most likely some upcoming threads and questions by me will be about conspiracy, but that doesn't make me a "(#&§% "truther".



Funny thing is, at first I really didn't want debunks, the conspiracy world was kind of fun to live in. I can see why people stay there, it provides a reality escape like religion or computergames and makes a person feel special.

But in the end I'm very happy I got out of that swamp and I feel I learned alot in the process. It awakened my interest for science, the universe and politics. Now I frequently watch real documentaries and follow the news alot more than before.

DaN K. StAnLeY
21st January 2009, 03:01 PM
I don't understand why you are so paranoid. Its almost as you are afraid of being influenced by these "thruthers".


Not paranoid....annoyed.

This thread has served its purpose...

Really? More than searching the tags would have?

If you read my latest topic you will see that I have gone from believing in a 9/11 conspiracy to seeing it as a very unlikely scenario.

Wow, and in only two threads!

But that wont happen often, because I have gone into watching real science and tech documentaries now instead of CT.

So now you know what "real" documentaries are when you were just asking about a Michael frickin Ruppert movie yesterday????

C'mon man. I'm not the smartest person here by a long shot, but I smell your "woo-poo" from a mile away. I watch "Friday Night Lights" too buddy! One thing that taught me.....never turn your back on a Sweed, especially not "The Sweed."

Slayhamlet
21st January 2009, 05:08 PM
Why are you doing this, Stanley? Why not just let the thread die like the guy asked? Are you just trying to get a reaction or what?


It's spelled "Swede", by the way.

A W Smith
21st January 2009, 06:48 PM
Yeah I get it, but its kind of annoying since I really don't feel like a truther and feel insulted in being named one :(

I'm a very late bloomer on 9/11 CT, its about 2 months old disease that I almost fully managed to get rid of now. So while this kind of posting have been going on for 5 years this is news to me.



Including my added edit that was made after your quote:




Funny thing is, at first I really didn't want debunks, the conspiracy world was kind of fun to live in. I can see why people stay there, it provides a reality escape like religion or computergames and makes a person feel special.

But in the end I'm very happy I got out of that swamp and I feel I learned alot in the process. It awakened my interest for science, the universe and politics. Now I frequently watch real documentaries and follow the news alot more than before.


you should stick around if only to see what we have to deal with when they show up and refuse to learn. i understand you had no time because of work and childcare, most just sit back and lurk before posting. and then after a few weeks or months watching the nonsense some truthers post they start posting as debunker's. Some get frustrated with truther idiocy and lash out, get suspended or even banned, much like cable access host Ron Wieck who posted as pomeroo before he got banned here. I myself apologize for being short in my very first post to you. and I understand if you decide you wont be sticking around here.

Corsair 115
21st January 2009, 08:45 PM
* Rupperts claim that Iraq invasion was because of oil. The US really isn't getting more oil from Iraq than it did before the war started.


It's actually importing a lot less, at least when comparing 2001 to 2007 (the last year for which there is complete data). In 2001, the U.S. imported some 290.0 million barrels of crude oil from Iraq; in 2007, it was down to 176.7 million barrels. That's a decline of 39%.

Going further, below is a table listing the breakdown of U.S. crude oil supplies (i.e. domestic production and imports) for 2001 and 2007. The numbers are drawn from the official data compiled by the Energy Information Administration. For each year the nations which supplied 10 million barrels or more in either year are included in the table. The numbers are in thousands of barrels.

U.S. Crude Oil Supply - Thousands of Barrels

2001 2007 Difference
-------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL SUPPLY 5,522,405 5,509,854 -12,551
-------------------------------------------------------
Domestic Production 2,117,511 1,848,450 -269,061
-------------------------------------------------------
Total Imports 3,404,894 3,661,404 256,510
-------------------------------------------------------
OPEC 1,769,620 1,966,559 196,939
Non OPEC 1,635,274 1,694,845 59,571
Persian Gulf 972,479 771,943 -200,536
-------------------------------------------------------
Saudi Arabia 588,075 528,189 -59,886
Mexico 508,715 514,124 5,409
Canada 494,796 689,209 194,413
Venezuela 471,243 419,180 -52,063
Nigeria 307,173 395,554 88,381
Iraq 289,998 176,709 -113,289
Angola 117,254 181,813 64,559
Norway 102,724 20,278 -82,446
Colombia 94,844 50,099 -44,745
United Kingdom 89,142 36,905 -52,237
Kuwait 86,535 63,806 -22,729
Gabon 51,065 22,897 -28,168
Ecuador 41,403 72,138 30,735
Argentina 21,013 12,156 -8,857
Trinidad & Tobago 18,562 17,608 -954
Indonesia 14,759 5,505 -9,254
Congo (Brazzaville) 14,430 23,123 8,693
Australia 12,567 739 -11,828
Vietnam 9,432 11,156 1,724
Oman 7,138 11,538 4,400
Equatorial Guinea 5,465 20,070 14,605
Brazil 4,667 60,297 55,630
Algeria 3,966 161,770 157,804
Russia 0 40,788 40,788
Azerbaijan 0 20,643 20,643
Chad 0 28,026 28,026
Libya 0 30,794 30,794

There are some interesting comparisons in the above. Total U.S. supply is nearly unchanged between 2001 and 2007, but domestic production dropped by 269 million barrels. Persian Gulf nations supplied 200 million fewer barrels of oil to the U.S. in 2007 compared to 2001 (a reduction of 20.6%); Saudi Arabia in particular supplied nearly 60 million fewer barrels (a 10.2% drop). Canada, in contrast, increased its supply of crude oil to the U.S. by 194 million barrels, a rise of 39.3%.

DaN K. StAnLeY
21st January 2009, 09:39 PM
It's spelled "Swede", by the way.

I knew it didn't look right, but thanks for pointing out something that I didn't care enough about to Google in the first place. How's that reaction?

Baylor
21st January 2009, 11:23 PM
But in the end I'm very happy I got out of that swamp and I feel I learned alot in the process. It awakened my interest for science, the universe and politics. Now I frequently watch real documentaries and follow the news alot more than before.

Glad to hear you've been reformed. Make sure you don't have a relapse. I've heard many truthers say they don't believe in woo one minute, then hint at their ill-defined conspiracy the next. I can't trust them as far as I can throw them. Then again that's gotta be pretty far knowing my strength.

Whiplash
22nd January 2009, 01:20 AM
Glad to hear you've been reformed. Make sure you don't have a relapse. I've heard many truthers say they don't believe in woo one minute, then hint at their ill-defined conspiracy the next. I can't trust them as far as I can throw them. Then again that's gotta be pretty far knowing my strength.


This sounds like a great idea for a "Skeptics Fair" kind of activity. "Truther Toss". Who can toss one the furthest? Perhaps even a special category where people can build launching devices and machines. Like those pumpkin tossing tournaments. Hell this could be great fun!