What do Truthers think when they see this?

[Scott Sommers]

What do Truthers think when they watch videos of 911 Truth demonstrations? A typical Truther demonstration has 10 to 20 people in it. Even one that is HUGE by Truther standards, like this year's Ground Zero demonstration, is pathetic compared with other political groups. Yet, every Truther will tell you like a Jehovah's Witness waiting for the Second Coming, that "the movement's growing every day". Even persecution of Truth movement members, as seen in the firing of Val Jones, Steven Jones, and Kevin Ryan, couldn't get more than a dozen out on the streets.

So all my JREFF friends who believe in this 'stuff', what goes through your head when you see that virtually no one shows up at any of your demonstrations?

[Unsecured Coins]

bill... calling you... *clang clang clang*

[Sam.I.Am]

That headline is self contradicting.:D

[Brainache]

What do Truthers think when they watch videos of 911 Truth demonstrations? ...

"We should have told them we had punch and pie!"

[Sam.I.Am]

I'd show up for punch and pie.

[T.A.M.]

bill... calling you... *clang clang clang*

lol...you took the words right out of my mouth.

TAM:D

[Scott Sommers]

This is a serious question. I am continually told by Truthers here and elsewhere that many question what they call the 'official story'. I hear constantly that the "movement's growing every day". Yet when 911 Truth groups hold events, no one comes. I can get more people to a birthday party. The government slaughters thousands in broad daylight, and you can't get more than a dozen people out to a rally? Tell me why that is.

[Sam.I.Am]

I can get more people to a birthday party. Why is that?

We already told you, birthday parties have punch and pie.

[Justin39640]

This is a serious question. I am continually told by Truthers here and elsewhere that many question what they call the 'official story'. I hear constantly that the "movement's growing every day". Yet when 911 Truth groups hold events, no one comes. I can get more people to a birthday party. The government slaughters thousands in broad daylight, and you can't get more than a dozen people out to a rally? Tell me why that is.

maybe it's like the "scooter" analogy
"being a truther is like riding a scooter... it's a lot of fun but you don't want to get caught riding one" (they are sick and do seem to enjoy it)

get that one kyleb? lol

[Elizabeth I]

I'd show up for punch and pie.

What if you got punched with pie?

[Sam.I.Am]

What if you got punched with pie?
Depends on who flinging the pie I guess...

[MIKILLINI]

That headline is self contradicting.:D

:dl:

Yeah, that thinking part is being generous. It's more like asking for an opinion.:D

[willhaven]

I would bet most truthers are closet truthers. Because the cognitive dissonance makes them feel dumb in public.

[Scott Sommers]

I would bet most truthers are closet truthers. Because the cognitive dissonance makes them feel dumb in public.

I wonder about this. Truthers here and other forums seem a lot more concerned about keeping their identity secret. I can believe there is a larger number of people who entertain these ideas than I see here or other places, but that they don't talk about it because they know others will think they are morons.

But that's kind of my point. The Truth Movement may be growing everyday in some real sense. Dylan and his gang of cowards may talk to people everyday who say they were changed by his message. But despite this, the Truth Movement still isn't the kind of thing that you really want to be part of anymore. Even Van Jones denied having anything to do with it anymore when he was confronted with the evidence.

So what kind of political movement is it that only a dozen will publicly support? Are there others who question 911, but still don't want to have anything to do with a Truth Movement filled full of the mentally ill? Is it an embarrassment to be associated with the Truth Movement? Or is it just that no one believes this rubbish anymore?

Why is it that almost no one shows up for their events?

[Longfellow]

...(snip)
Yet, every Truther will tell you like a Jehovah's Witness waiting for the Second Coming, that "the movement's growing every day".


I have asked 'truthers' here these questions several (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5073103#post5073103) times (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5071244#post5071244) but have been ignored.

If "the movement's growing every day" then why is it that the proponents of said 'movement' who have been banned here see the need to create multiple sock-puppets in order to continue posting?

If it is growing, as you claim, why is it that only a handful of people see the need to troll about it on this board?

Surely, if your reality were correct, truthers, we would be flooded with real people asking real questions, right? Why, then, do we have only a few people creating multiple sock-puppets in order to spread the gospel that is the '9/11 truth movement'?

There's not a shred of truth in any of the ludicrous claims of this 'movement'.

[Horatius]

Why is it that almost no one shows up for their events?



Well, it's quite simple really: The majority of people do realize that 9/11 was an inside job, but they're just too cowardly to admit it in public. So you see, the publicly acknowledged Truthers are really just that much better than everyone - they're smarter than the "sheeple" who still believe the Bushie "OCT", and they're also braver than those who know Teh Twoof, but are too *********** to admit it.

Because when you get right down to it, it's really all about the truthers needing some reason to feel "special".

[Scott Sommers]

So now I have almost 200 views and 15 replies, of which 2 are mine. That leaves 13 replies from people I agree with completely. Can we get some of Truthers that post here to give their opinions? Have they somehow missed this post? How can I get them? Should I PM them? Is there any point to this?

[Horatius]

Is there any point to this?



I'd say, probably not. It seems to me that two of the defining characteristics of most truthers are a complete lack of self-awareness, and a complete lack of interest in self-reflection. They have an image of themselves that is completely at odds with reality, but they're happy with that.

[Algebra34]

What do Truthers think when they watch videos of 911 Truth demonstrations? A typical Truther demonstration has 10 to 20 people in it. Even one that is HUGE by Truther standards, like this year's Ground Zero demonstration, is pathetic compared with other political groups. Yet, every Truther will tell you like a Jehovah's Witness waiting for the Second Coming, that "the movement's growing every day". Even persecution of Truth movement members, as seen in the firing of Val Jones, Steven Jones, and Kevin Ryan, couldn't get more than a dozen out on the streets.

So all my JREFF friends who believe in this 'stuff', what goes through your head when you see that virtually no one shows up at any of your demonstrations?

What's really funny is the amount of people who are still offended by just 10-20 truthers that supposedly support a dead movement. So offended to the point where they feel the need to join a forum to denounce it.

[UNLoVedRebel]

edit - wrong thread

[Scott Sommers]

What's really funny is the amount of people who are still offended by just 10-20 truthers that supposedly support a dead movement. So offended to the point where they feel the need to join a forum to denounce it.

i asked about this point on another post
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=152318
Personally, I was satisfied with the answer. If it's nothing else, it's fun: kind of like doing jigsaw puzzles.

But there is another issue. Unlike the lunar hoax folks or the Lochness monster people, 911 Truthers are really obnoxious. Now that I notice this stuff, I see them popping up everywhere. And like mites and cockroaches, it's really hard to get rid of them. Serial killers are responsible for almost none of the recorded murders, yet they consume large amounts of time and resources of both of law enforcement agents and popular media. You can think of Truthers like serial killers. No one wants them around and when they show up, they do everything they can to cause trouble.

But that's a whole other problem. Now that you're here Truther, perhaps you can answer my question. It is a fact that 911 Truth demonstrations attract also no one. How does this make you feel?

[portlandatheist]

Truthers are becoming more and more popular each and every day. It's mainstream now!
Truther at recent demonstration:
We got punched, kicked, pinched and and pushed. Other then that, it sucked
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4852409#post4852409

Growing stronger each and every day! I have to admit that I would be a little sad if the truth movement completely died. They are non stop amusement although it is schadenfreude.

[Sam.I.Am]

What's really funny is the amount of people who are still offended by just 10-20 truthers that supposedly support a dead movement. So offended to the point where they feel the need to join a forum to denounce it.

That's because, unlike truthers (based upon their actions and not the platitudes they give when they know that a camera is running), there are people who have respect for the victims and their families and friends. One truther spouting off is one too many IMHO. Speaking out about things and actions that you find absolutely reprehensible is the responsibility of everyone no matter what it is.

[Scott Sommers]

That's because, unlike truthers (based upon their actions and not the platitudes they give when they know that a camera is running), there are people who have respect for the victims and their families and friends. One truther spouting off is one too many IMHO. Speaking out about things and actions that you find absolutely reprehensible is the responsibility of everyone no matter what it is.

So tell me, how do you feel when you see videos of Truther rallies with only 10 people? Really, I want to know. Where are all the others?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

What's really funny is the amount of people who are still offended by just 10-20 truthers that supposedly support a dead movement. So offended to the point where they feel the need to join a forum to denounce it.


Back already...?

Seriously, though... you'd have agree that it's even more "funny" that someone would feel the need to join a forum multiple times for... apparently no reason at all. Whether it's meant to give the illusion of support, or some sick obsession, it's hardly an honorable action.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

This is a serious question. I am continually told by Truthers here and elsewhere that many question what they call the 'official story'. I hear constantly that the "movement's growing every day". Yet when 911 Truth groups hold events, no one comes. I can get more people to a birthday party. The government slaughters thousands in broad daylight, and you can't get more than a dozen people out to a rally? Tell me why that is.


I imagine it's something akin to New Speak from 1984. It's a positive phrase that means exactly the opposite of what is actually going on. It would also fit with their tendency to redefine words and phrases, like "pull", to turn innocuous statements into support for their beliefs.

To truthers, words are flexible... just like facts.

ETA:

So now I have almost 200 views and 15 replies, of which 2 are mine. That leaves 13 replies from people I agree with completely. Can we get some of Truthers that post here to give their opinions? Have they somehow missed this post? How can I get them? Should I PM them? Is there any point to this?


It's rather late over here on the other side of planet. Most of them are probably asleep.

[Sam.I.Am]

So tell me, how do you feel when you see videos of Truther rallies with only 10 people? Really, I want to know. Where are all the others?

Honestly, I think that there are five categories of truthers. In order of the size of their ranks:

(1) There are the trolls and /b/ tards that are in it for the lulz (they don't believe what they say but like to get a rise out of people). They will never show up, they aren't that invested into it other than typing in their moms basement.

(2) The extreme rightists and leftists who pursue it because of their political beliefs and that they will do and say anything to "Stick it to the man" (They spend their hard earned cash but only for the propaganda that supports their ideology). They will show up only when it's politically convenient for their ideology.

(3) The true believers (who also spend their hard earned cash on the propaganda). These are the ones that are most likely to show up if possible.

(4) The guys who sell snake oil propaganda (their motive is straight profit). They might show up if they think that they can sell DVDs, t-shirts, books and bumper stickers.

(5) Finally, I think that there are a few psychologists out there who are either working on their thesis or writing a book about this phenomenon and trying to elicit juicy responses to quote. They show up but stand across the street and observe.

[bill smith]

What do Truthers think when they watch videos of 911 Truth demonstrations? A typical Truther demonstration has 10 to 20 people in it. Even one that is HUGE by Truther standards, like this year's Ground Zero demonstration, is pathetic compared with other political groups. Yet, every Truther will tell you like a Jehovah's Witness waiting for the Second Coming, that "the movement's growing every day". Even persecution of Truth movement members, as seen in the firing of Val Jones, Steven Jones, and Kevin Ryan, couldn't get more than a dozen out on the streets.

So all my JREFF friends who believe in this 'stuff', what goes through your head when you see that virtually no one shows up at any of your demonstrations?

People are generally moral cowards and will not stand up for their beliefs to the point of putting their heads above the parapet. This is an unfortunate fact of life. However they are perfectly well able to see what really happened on 9/11 when they open their eyes. We are reaching those Americans in their millions. Internationally even more.

These two quotes together encapsulate the situation very well.

"Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."

'' In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.''

[Scott Sommers]

People are generally moral cowards and will not stand up for their beliefs to the point of putting their heads above the parapet. This is an unfortunate fact of life. However they are perfectly well able to see what really happened on 9/11 when they open their eyes. We are reaching those Americans in their millions. Internationally even more.

These two quotes together encapsulate the situation very well.

"Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."

'' In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.''

I appreciate very much your willingness to answer me directly. Thank you.

Do I understand you correctly? You believe that the Truth Movement is not growing larger every day.

[Sam.I.Am]

You believe that the Truth Movement is not growing larger every day.

Bill Smith is either (1) or (5) as I listed above. Take your pick.

[Dave Rogers]

I think that when bill smith sees a truther demonstration with 10-20 people attending, he thinks there are 10-20 million people attending.

Dave

[JihadJane]

What do Truthers think when they watch videos of 911 Truth demonstrations?

Why do you care?

[bill smith]

I appreciate very much your willingness to answer me directly. Thank you.

Do I understand you correctly? You believe that the Truth Movement is not growing larger every day.

Whether the Movement for Truth is growing on the streets or not is hard to say. I think it is growing but fairly slowly. This is to be expected by the definitions I gave in the last post.

However it is not true to say that Americans and others are not realising more and more that 9/11 was an inside job. This number is growing and accelerating.

We are headed for a situation where the whole world basically will know that the Americans carried out 9/11 themselves but nothing will be done about it and it will never be officially admitted.

It seems that most people are prepared to live with this skeleton thrashing around in the cupboard. Sad but true.

This complacency will be regretted as sure as eggs is eggs.

[JihadJane]

Anti Apartheid protest, South Africa House, London, UK, 1989:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/263894ab9fb35ba23a.jpg

[JihadJane]

Honestly, I think that there are five categories of truthers. In order of the size of their ranks:

(1) There are the trolls and /b/ tards that are in it for the lulz (they don't believe what they say but like to get a rise out of people). They will never show up, they aren't that invested into it other than typing in their moms basement.

(2) The extreme rightists and leftists who pursue it because of their political beliefs and that they will do and say anything to "Stick it to the man" (They spend their hard earned cash but only for the propaganda that supports their ideology). They will show up only when it's politically convenient for their ideology.

(3) The true believers (who also spend their hard earned cash on the propaganda). These are the ones that are most likely to show up if possible.

(4) The guys who sell snake oil propaganda (their motive is straight profit). They might show up if they think that they can sell DVDs, t-shirts, books and bumper stickers.

(5) Finally, I think that there are a few psychologists out there who are either working on their thesis or writing a book about this phenomenon and trying to elicit juicy responses to quote. They show up but stand across the street and observe.


Have you ever been involved in any kind of political action yourself?

[Foolmewunz]

Have you ever been involved in any kind of political action yourself?

(Foolmewunz waves arm frantically.)

"Oooh! Oooh! Pick me, Web Warrior! Pick me!"

I've raised this question numerous times to truthers and generic conspiradroids... Those supporting the delusions that Sibel Edmonds is promoting, or the CIT who slander people on the internet and "have the goods", but won't press charges.

So, how about you, Jihad Jane. You'd go to jail for your beliefs, wouldn't you?

[BigAl]

Anti Apartheid protest, South Africa House, London, UK, 1989:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/263894ab9fb35ba23a.jpg

Based on my knowledge of the Irish protests of the same era outside the British embassy in NYC, I bet that picket line was a 7 day a week affair. For the TM, it's 7 days a year, at best.

[Dave Rogers]

Anti Apartheid protest, South Africa House, London, UK, 1989:

Thus demonstrating, if nothing else, that quote mining is not limited to the world of textual information.

Dave

[JihadJane]

So, how about you, Jihad Jane. You'd go to jail for your beliefs, wouldn't you?


Yes, I already have been. Would you?

Thus demonstrating, if nothing else, that quote mining is not limited to the world of textual information.

Dave

Think of it as mind-expanding poetry.

[stateofgrace]

Thus demonstrating, if nothing else, that quote mining is not limited to the world of textual information.

Dave

Everybody knows that a few protesters outside South Africa House was the only thing that brought apartheid down. :rolleyes:

[JihadJane]

Everybody knows that a few protesters outside South Africa House was the only thing that brought apartheid down. :rolleyes:

... and everyone knows that skepticism about the Bush regime 9/11 narrative is restricted to a few street protestors, as seen on youtube.

[stateofgrace]

... and everyone knows that skepticism about the Bush regime 9/11 narrative is restricted to a few street protestors, as seen on youtube.

Are you seriously comparing the TM to the world wide anti apartheid protests?

Seriously?

[JihadJane]

Are you seriously comparing the TM to the world wide anti apartheid protests?

Seriously?


No, I was just pointing out the error in the OP's sampling system.

...and I wasn't talking about the fabled "TM" but 9/11 skepticism in general, world-wide.

[BadBoy]

Based on my knowledge of the Irish protests of the same era outside the British embassy in NYC, I bet that picket line was a 7 day a week affair. For the TM, it's 7 days a year, at best.
absolutely correct.

Students demonstrated 24/7 for YEARS continuously outside South Africa House. They pretty much became a tourist stop.

[stateofgrace]

No, I was just pointing out the error in the OP's sampling system.

The sampling system was fine. Because the OP pointed out this is all the TM as. Unlike genuine protest that has genuine support behind it. Genuine support of a cause commands world wide respect; it gains Nobel peace prizes for those involved. Those involved in genuine protest are prepared to spend years of their live behind bars in support of their believes.

Unlike the TM (or 911 skeptism as you now call it) that command and have none of this. No world support, no sanctions, no Nobel peace prizes, no genuine commitment and dedication. Zero.

[triforcharity]

Whether the Movement for Truth is growing on the streets or not is hard to say. I think it is growing but fairly slowly. This is to be expected by the definitions I gave in the last post.

However it is not true to say that Americans and others are not realising more and more that 9/11 was an inside job. This number is growing and accelerating.

We are headed for a situation where the whole world basically will know that the Americans carried out 9/11 themselves but nothing will be done about it and it will never be officially admitted.

It seems that most people are prepared to live with this skeleton thrashing around in the cupboard. Sad but true.

This complacency will be regretted as sure as eggs is eggs.


Which explains how in a city of 8 MILLION people, NYCCAN had a hard time getting 30,000 signatures for its FailProject aka New Investigation.

I would be willing to bet I could find 30,000 people in a week to sign a petition to saying that Jeter is the devil. IN NYC. But, yet, the TM has to take over a year to gather 30,000 signatures. Holy craptastic fail.

BTW, 30,000 people is less than 1% of NYC. How sad and pathetic is that.

[triforcharity]

Based on my knowledge of the Irish protests of the same era outside the British embassy in NYC, I bet that picket line was a 7 day a week affair. For the TM, it's 7 days a year, at best.

More like 7 HOURS total.

[Childlike Empress]

No, I was just pointing out the error in the OP's sampling system.

...and I wasn't talking about the fabled "TM" but 9/11 skepticism in general, world-wide.


I'm sure it looks like an army of cloned Luke Rudkowski's marching through the head of these people. Now that it's dying daily for quite some time, they have nothing to count anymore when they're lying in their bed in mom's basement trying to find sleep.

[JihadJane]

The sampling system was fine. Because the OP pointed out this is all the TM [is].

Why pay any attention whatsover to it, then? Haven't you got better things to do?

Unlike genuine protest that has genuine support behind it. Genuine support of a cause commands world wide respect; it gains Nobel peace prizes for those involved. Those involved in genuine protest are prepared to spend years of their live behind bars in support of their believes.

Unlike the TM (or 911 skeptism as you now call it) that command and have none of this. No world support, no sanctions, no Nobel peace prizes, no genuine commitment and dedication. Zero.

In what way are people who protest about 9/11 not genuine protestors?

Genuine protest, btw, very rarely gets one a Nobel Prize. It is more likely get you spat on, beaten up and/or tortured!

[stateofgrace]

Why pay any attention whatsover to it, then? Haven't you got better things to do?

I have actually, hence the reason to leave you to it.

In what way are people who protest about 9/11 not genuine protestors?In what way are they ?

Genuine protest, btw, rarely gets you a Nobel Prize, though it may get you tortured!Oh I see ,so fear of torture is the reason we don't see massive world wide protest in support for the TM. :rolleyes:

[Dave Rogers]

... and everyone knows that skepticism about the Bush regime 9/11 narrative is restricted to a few street protestors, as seen on youtube.

Good point. There are angry ignorant teenagers generating websites about it too.

Dave

[Foolmewunz]

Yes, I already have been. Would you?

BTDT - wanna compare notes on which cities have the toughest lockups?

[JihadJane]

I have actually, hence the reason to leave you to it.



Bye!

BTDT - wanna compare notes on which cities have the toughest lockups?

No. What beliefs were you locked up for?

Good point. There are angry ignorant teenagers generating websites about it too.

Dave

When did you first find yourself attracted to angry teenager culture?



In what way are they ?

In what way aren't they?

Oh I see ,so fear of torture is the reason we don't see massive world wide protest in support for the TM. :rolleyes:

Your mind, not mine.

[triforcharity]

Jihad was most likely locked up in a looney bin because he believed that the NWO was trying to beat his door down to force somme cookies down his throat that contained some kind of poison. Turend out, the Girl Scouts just wanted him to buy some thin mints so they could go on some trip.

And he most likely believes it still to this day. BUT, the medication makes it tolerable.

[JihadJane]

Jihad was most likely locked up in a looney bin because he believed that the NWO was trying to beat his door down to force somme cookies down his throat that contained some kind of poison. Turend out, the Girl Scouts just wanted him to buy some thin mints so they could go on some trip.

And he most likely believes it still to this day. BUT, the medication makes it tolerable.

Wrong thread.

[triforcharity]

No, Sir/ma'am, it most certainly is not. You said,

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz
So, how about you, Jihad Jane. You'd go to jail for your beliefs, wouldn't you?

Yes, I already have been. Would you?

So, how is it the wrong thread???

[Foolmewunz]

Bye!



No. What beliefs were you locked up for?

Mostly anti-war or anti-draft related. I was at pretty much most of the major demonstrations in the Eastern US in '68 and '69. Spme of 'em got a little rowdy and/or out of hand.

And to be honest, of course I wasn't locked up for my beliefs but for the civil disobedience associated with same.

[BadBoy]

No, I was just pointing out the error in the OP's sampling system.

...and I wasn't talking about the fabled "TM" but 9/11 skepticism in general, world-wide.
Its easy to propergate urban myths, missconceptions and outright lies given the world we live in has technology that allows the freedom and pervasivness of information such as it does.

For example, a particular peev of mine is the percieved pervasivness of "Political Correctness". Everytime I research a claim of "PC" gone mad, more often than not it boils down to a small incident that had been picked up by the tabloids and retransmitted completely out of context. Before you know it everyone is talking about it but nobody knows where it came from. Normally if it sounds idiotic and stupid and unbelievable, then it probably never happened.

Whats worse is that other idiots that are on the PC bandwaggon actually pick up on it and enact it, there by turning an initial myth into a real situation. And before you know it, the worlds gone mad.

I think 9/11 skepticism is like this, and also evolution skepticism. I've talked with people about 9/11 who throw statements out there like its been proven beyond reasonable doubt that there are questions to be asked about 9/11. I ask on what basis they think that and they dont really know - they read something someplace. Im astonished at how apparently sound reasonable people can turn into odd balls. And its usually because they dont care enough about it to properly research. Its easier and more interesting to just propergate the myth rather than find out if its actually the truth.

An exmaple of the PC myth propergation is the old "baa baa black sheep" rhyme.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baa,_Baa,_Black_Sheep
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/600470.stm

You notice how even the BBC above got it worng, see below:

A controversy emerged over changing the language of 'Baa Baa Black Sheep' in Britain from 1986, because, it was alleged in the popular press, it was seen as racially dubious, was, Curran, Pently and Gaber indicate, based only on a rewriting of the rhyme one private nursery as an exercise for the children. A similar controversy emerged in 1999 when reservations were submitted to Birmingham City Council by a working group on racism in children's resources, which were never approved or implemented. Press assertions that two private nurseries in Oxfordshire in 2006 had altered the song to rainbow sheep were in fact prompted by another attempt to allow the song to be repeated with variations. Commentators have asserted that these controversies have been exaggerated or distorted by some elements of the press as part of a more general campaign against political correctness. (From Wikipedia)

Before you know it everyone is condeming political correctness and suggesting that ALL schools are banning the song, which of course would be rediculous, if it were actually true.

Im thinging of starting a new thread on the PC issue.

[Dave Rogers]

When did you first find yourself attracted to angry teenager culture?

Back in the seventies, when I was an angry teenager. Duh.

Dave

[BadBoy]

Back in the seventies, when I was an angry teenager. Duh.

Dave
excellent :D

[leftysergeant]

Have you ever been involved in any kind of political action yourself?

In 1970, I took part in an anti-war demonstration in Fayetteville, North Carolina. Four abreast, our line stretched about half a mile down Hay Street.

I doubt that the twoofers have ever raised that big a crowd even in a place where the police actually wanted to be sure that nobody would hurt the little snots.

[BigAl]

Have you ever been involved in any kind of political action yourself?

Several trips to D.C. for anti-VN war protests that involved a bit of teargas. Big demonstrations are so much more civilized now.

The Feb 15 2003 Anti-Iraq war demonstrations that got a couple hundred people out in NYC on a bitter cold day and with large protests in most ither cities.

There was an anti-Iraq war protest in D.C in there somewhere.

[Brattus]

Whether the Movement for Truth is growing on the streets or not is hard to say. I think it is growing but fairly slowly. This is to be expected by the definitions I gave in the last post.

However it is not true to say that Americans and others are not realising more and more that 9/11 was an inside job. This number is growing and accelerating.

We are headed for a situation where the whole world basically will know that the Americans carried out 9/11 themselves but nothing will be done about it and it will never be officially admitted.

It seems that most people are prepared to live with this skeleton thrashing around in the cupboard. Sad but true.

This complacency will be regretted as sure as eggs is eggs.

Americans killed Americans on 9/11 uh?
I believe you couldn't care less about who killed who or who died and who didn't.
From what I read in your post I believe the most important thing to you is clinging to your delusion.
Your delusion being that you are a lone warrior of truth standing above a world of sheep to afraid to speak out.
You have been asked over and over again for evidence to back up your claims but never give any.
Thats because you don't really care about evidence or what happened on that horrible day.
You found something that you can hide behind that keeps you separated from everyone else and your holding on to it with all your might.
I pity you.

[bill smith]

Americans killed Americans on 9/11 uh?
I believe you couldn't care less about who killed who or who died and who didn't.
From what I read in your post I believe the most important thing to you is clinging to your delusion.
Your delusion being that you are a lone warrior of truth standing above a world of sheep to afraid to speak out.
You have been asked over and over again for evidence to back up your claims but never give any.
Thats because you don't really care about evidence or what happened on that horrible day.
You found something that you can hide behind that keeps you separated from everyone else and your holding on to it with all your might.
I pity you.

Well I guess that yu will have to believe whatever it is you believe. I will certainly do the same.

[Scott Sommers]

In 1970, I took part in an anti-war demonstration in Fayetteville, North Carolina. Four abreast, our line stretched about half a mile down Hay Street.

I doubt that the twoofers have ever raised that big a crowd even in a place where the police actually wanted to be sure that nobody would hurt the little snots.

And I was a part of the Hands across Taiwan protest that lined up people holding hands across the entire 300km of the island. I've been in other demonstrations with 5-600,000 people.

So we all agree that there appears to be no way to demonstrate that 911 Truth is growing...but we all know it is.

[lapman]

Anti Apartheid protest, South Africa House, London, UK, 1989:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/263894ab9fb35ba23a.jpg
Yet the anti-war protests bring out thousands.
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/03/23/photos/wor-protests.jpg

Do not hotlink images.

[lapman]

In what way are people who protest about 9/11 not genuine protestors?Lack of support, consistency in attendance or message. The apartheid protesters had people there 24/7. 9/11 protesters are there when it's convenient or they have nothing better to do. Of course, the exceptions are the ones that are peddling books, DVDs, etc. For them, it's business.

[Scott Sommers]

I went to Google images and typed in apartheid demonstration. I got these images of huge demonstrations. I don't know how to imbed videos, but this demonstration took place in London and there were loads of people there
http://www.newsplayer.com/anti-apartheid-demonstration-in-trafalgar-square-video. The 1985 anti-aparteid demonstration in London attracte 100,000 people http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1314&dat=19851103&id=_P0RAAAAIBAJ&sjid=M-8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=6917,815162
Truthers never cease to amaze me with their retarded sense of what evidence is. Get a brain.

http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/museumoflondon/images/microsites/derivatives//exploring/107/mid/HG1960_32.jpg

http://www.historicalvoices.org/pbuilder/pbarch/overcoming_apartheid/a0/a9/overcoming_apartheid-a0a9c2-a_3272.jpg
http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/32D43BEE-EDDF-43EB-B4C6-D62BC08917C5/0/1990demoIDAF_tr.jpg

Do not hotlink images.

[Dave Rogers]

I went to Google images and typed in apartheid demonstration. I got these images of huge demonstrations.

Yes, but when only the first ten people had turned up, there were only ten people there, which proves that 9/11 was an inside job.

Sorry, did I get that wrong?

Dave

[Unsecured Coins]

now in comparison Jane and bill will now post pictures of 100,000 truthers all in the same place all holding up giant inside job signs and making a difference

[Dave Rogers]

now in comparison Jane and bill will now post pictures of 100,000 truthers all in the same place

...and all looking suspiciously similar to one another.

Dave

[Unsecured Coins]

and failing to see the irony in calling US sheep

[bill smith]

now in comparison Jane and bill will now post pictures of 100,000 truthers all in the same place all holding up giant inside job signs and making a difference

Nowadays we have the internet and there are millions of ' internet warriors ' as you like to call them. I think this has suited he goverment very well as it keeps us isolated from each other in our individual little cocoons. Still we have an effect by reaching out to other IW all around the World. We provide a knowledge base for newcomers to the Truth and strong support for those movements that are taking action on the ground.

There is nothing that the government likes less than marching legs and chanting as tempers can quickly flare and things can get out of their control.

What would happen if they say switched off the internet ? Now there is a real debate. Maybe Truthers everywhere should arrange meeting points for that eventuality while we still can..

Maybe we could open websites in Russia and countries less than friendly to the US that would not be responsive to American requests to shut such sites down. Can you imagine a site called 'The Truther refugee centre ' for instance where physical meetings could be coordinated and information and advice given ?

Let the bars around ground zero be meeting points for New York State Truthers if the net connections fail. You see how it might go all around the country and the World for every area ?

[NutCracker]

Yes, I already have been. Would you?



Think of it as mind-expanding poetry.

The anti-apartheid movement had a (moral) point. Unfortunately for the Truth movement, it has got nothing but logical fallacies to support, cough, cough, its theories.

[Foolmewunz]

Nowadays we have the internet and there are millions of ' internet warriors ' as you like to call them. I think this has suited he goverment very well as it keeps us isolated from each other in our individual little cocoons. Still we have an effect by reaching out to other IW all around the World. We provide a knowledge base for newcomers to the Truth and strong support for those movements that are taking action on the ground.

There is nothing that the government likes less than marching legs and chanting as tempers can quickly flare and things can get out of their control.

What would happen if they say switched off the internet ? Now there is a real debate. Maybe Truthers everywhere should arrange meeting points for that eventuality while we still can..

Maybe we could open websites in Russia and countries less than friendly to the US that would not be responsive to American requests to shut such sites down. Can you imagine a site called 'The Truther refugee centre ' for instance where physical meetings could be coordinated and information and advice given ?

Let the bars around ground zero be meeting points for New York State Truthers if the net connections fail. You see how it might go all around the country and the World for every area ?

These are all excellent ideas, Bill.... If only there was any actual repression of your vaunted movement to worry about. There is none. It's a lazy-boy based revolution you're fomenting.

You speak of people lacking the moral courage to stand up, but we're citing people here who had the physical courage and the drive to get off their butts and put their bodies on the line even if only marginally. (I don't compare my activism to what soldiers, law enforcement, and first responders actually do. I doubt that the others do, either. But when it came time to take a stand, we didn't look for an internet cafe or a pub in lower Manhattan so we'd have a comfy place to hang out and cogitate.)

Gandhi got up one day and said, "Folks we're gonna go for a little walk. It may get unpleasant out there, but it's something we've got to do if we really believe what we say we do." MLk faced riot sticks, fire hoses, and police dogs, but he continued on. Medgar Evers payed the ultimate price.

You guys? "There'll be a big turnout, ... weather permitting." You worry about net censorship that hasn't occurred because without your precious YouTube you couldn't function. You're not a movement! You're an annoyance.

[Quad4_72]

This is a serious question.

There are no serious questions when it comes to twoofers.

[DGM]

What do Truthers think when they watch videos of 911 Truth demonstrations? A typical Truther demonstration has 10 to 20 people in it. Even one that is HUGE by Truther standards, like this year's Ground Zero demonstration, is pathetic compared with other political groups. Yet, every Truther will tell you like a Jehovah's Witness waiting for the Second Coming, that "the movement's growing every day". Even persecution of Truth movement members, as seen in the firing of Val Jones, Steven Jones, and Kevin Ryan, couldn't get more than a dozen out on the streets.

So all my JREFF friends who believe in this 'stuff', what goes through your head when you see that virtually no one shows up at any of your demonstrations?
That the camera angle was bad and it doesn't show the "true" support. Denial (or is it delusion) knows no boundaries.:o

[Scott Sommers]

And back to my original question. Do Jane and Bill agree with me that 911 Truth is unable to mount a large demonstration?

[Foolmewunz]

And back to my original question. Do Jane and Bill agree with me that 911 Truth is unable to mount a large demonstration?

Frankly, I think they're learning. The WAC folks did a far better job on this year's 911 get-together. I'd not be surprised if NYCCAAN gets a fair crowd together this Sunday, either.

But I don't think this is a sign of a growing movement; more that they are getting the children and DVD Director Wannabes out of the way and the old guard professional activists are organizing things. The NYCCAAN group has a lot of very experienced counter-culture demonstrator types involved, for instance. They can get 200 people out to protest the number of squirrels in Madison Square. They can surely get a showcase of demonstrators out.

But it's the same old faces who show up at any demonstration. I know people from that crowd whose mid-week mantra is "Any good demonstrations this weekend?".

[Scott Sommers]

200 is not a good show. It's big enough that it's intimidating to people like Dan Stevens and the police have to take it seriously in case they start breaking things. But it is not a big crowd. This is a big crowd.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_nWpwm6lhWUs/ShQi_ZU4YJI/AAAAAAAAIWs/NXNgPXmW9mY/s400/Taiwan+Demonstration+Sunday+3.jpg

or this

http://www.voanews.com/chinese/images/voa_chinese_taipei_demonstration_17may09_195.jpg

Do you need more?

Do not hotlink images.

[Scott Sommers]

So do we all agree? At their very best, Truthers can't get out more people than a big frat patry?

[Sam.I.Am]

Maybe, if they promise punch and pie. But they'd better deliver or things could get ugly...

[CHF]

There is nothing that the government likes less than marching legs and chanting as tempers can quickly flare and things can get out of their control.

Indeed. And yet despite knowing this truthers decide instead to sit in front of their computers and preach to the choir.

Why?

What would happen if they say switched off the internet ?

Probably the same thing that happens for the rest of us when we switch off the internet: 9/11 truth disappears.

Maybe we could open websites in Russia and countries less than friendly to the US that would not be responsive to American requests to shut such sites down.

Is this you in your fantasy world again? There have been no efforts to shut the TM sites down and there never will be.

But I'm glad to see you acknowledge the fact that there are anti-US countries out there. Perhaps that would be a place to get your "research" peer-reviewed seeing how all the journals in the west are controlled by the CIA.

[CHF]

So do we all agree? At their very best, Truthers can't get out more people than a big frat patry?

The truthers are a tiny movement to begin with and of their tiny number 95% are what I'd call casual truthers - the people who watched LC and bought into some/all of it...but are not firmly committed to the "cause."

Casual truthers have lives and are thus not emotionally invested in what they see in an on-line crapumentary. Show them the counter-evidence and they toss aside 9/11 truth like a grenade. In fact most are embarrassed at having ever been fooled by it. These people are salvagable and most have jumped ship since 2006 and fewer are signing up to the TM today.

Then there's the other 5% - the die-hards.

These are the losers and social outcasts for whom 9/11 truth is a reason to keep living. It provides them with a much-needed sense of superiority ("I'm so much smarter than the sheeple!"), something to do with their time (there's always another video to watch!) and it often forms their social circle of other (mostly) single white males.

Die-hards are the ones who drive off their friends and family with this nonsense and, generally speaking, they're the ones who show up to rallies and make fools of themselves in public.

This explains why truther rallies are so small and why it's always the same group of losers who show up.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

The truthers are a tiny movement to begin with and of their tiny number 95% are what I'd call casual truthers - the people who watched LC and bought into some/all of it...but are not firmly committed to the "cause."

Casual truthers have lives and are thus not emotionally invested in what they see in an on-line crapumentary. Show them the counter-evidence and they toss aside 9/11 truth like a grenade. In fact most are embarrassed at having ever been fooled by it. These people are salvagable and most have jumped ship since 2006 and fewer are signing up to the TM today.


A bit off-topic, I think, but... I get the impression that there are a non-trivial number of people that casually believe there is something "suspicious", at the very least, about the JFK assassination.

These people aren't active, because, as you say about truthers, they aren't emotionally invested in exposing the alleged conspiracy. Most likely they weren't very interested in the topic to begin with, but once or twice heard or read someone go on about the alleged anomalies in the "official story" and casually absorbed the general idea that "things aren't quite right with the official explanation".

Most could probably be convinced there's nothing suspicious if shown the available evidence, but the opportunity will never present itself, because these people tend not to bring the topic up in conversation. It could be that they feel it's "well-known" and that they don't need to say anything, or it could be that they just don't really care that much about the subject, being far-removed (emotionally and/or temporally) from the event itself.

I'm quite sure this is the way "9/11 truth" will go, too, although maybe even to a lesser degree. There will be no Big Reveal™; no revolution. Just a casual and uncaring acceptance of "not quite right" by a non-trivial number of people who will continue to do absolutely nothing about it.

[CHF]

I'm quite sure this is the way "9/11 truth" will go, too, although maybe even to a lesser degree. There will be no Big Reveal™; no revolution. Just a casual and uncaring acceptance of "not quite right" by a non-trivial number of people who will continue to do absolutely nothing about it.

What renders the TM really pathetic IMO is the fact that 9/11 is an international issue right now.

JFK's death has no visible impact today so conspiracy theorists can afford to do nothing.

Truthers, on the other hand, are trying to expose a conspiracy that killed 3,000 people and led to two wars that are going on as we speak. Young men the same ages as themselves are off fighting on the front line; 5,000+ have died already, as well as countless Iraqis and Afghans.

And what do truthers do? 95% do nothing at all while the other 5% stage a small rally maybe once a week and only if it doesn't rain.

[Mr.D]

Genuine protest, btw, very rarely gets one a Nobel Prize. It is more likely get you spat on, beaten up and/or tortured!

And the 9/11 Truthers can only fantasize about being that important.

[Foolmewunz]

<snip>

Genuine protest, btw, very rarely gets one a Nobel Prize. It is more likely get you spat on, beaten up and/or tortured!

While this might be true for the first fifty years of the Nobel Peace Prize, there were quite a number of protest march types given the award in the second half of the last century.

Tutu? Mandela? King? Aung S S Kyi? Walesa? Corrigan and Williams?
Rabble-rousing marchers one and all.

[Matthew Cline]

People are generally moral cowards and will not stand up for their beliefs to the point of putting their heads above the parapet.

So then, I suppose that being a Truther protesters requires much more moral fortitude than those who protested for civil rights in the 1960s, or than the protestors at the numerous anti-war rallies over the decades.

[Scott Sommers]

Genuine protest, btw, very rarely gets one a Nobel Prize. It is more likely get you spat on, beaten up and/or tortured! .

Don't believe this slop that Jane passes off as research. He or she or whatever transgendered form Jane is has no idea who or what wins the Nobel Prize these days. Nelson Mandela who the 1993 recipient spent 27 years in prison. I don't want to defend the PLO, but there's no question that 1994 recipient Yasser Arafat has a deep sense o committment and has suffered for it. Wangari Muta Maathai, 2004 recipient ,has been targetted for assasination and arrested numerous times. 2003 recipient Shirin Ebadi has been threatened, his family has been threatened, his daughter has been accused of a capitol offense, he has been accused of defending 'CIA spies'.

Perhaps this is why you think the TM is some sort of compelling alternative. You have no idea there are people who have given up their lives for something they believe in. This goes on all the time. You just don't know anything about it.

Let me suggest an idea. Get a computer with an internet connection. It'll allow you to surf the web and find out more about what's really going on.

[JihadJane]

Lack of support, consistency in attendance or message.

One single protester protesting against the rising of the sun is still a genuine protester!


And back to my original question. Do Jane and Bill agree with me that 911 Truth is unable to mount a large demonstration?

Why do you care? I don't.

We're not, after all, discussing sport or the music charts.

So do we all agree? At their very best, Truthers can't get out more people than a big frat patry?

Why do you care?


Don't believe this slop that Jane passes off as research. He or she or whatever transgendered form Jane is has no idea who or what wins the Nobel Prize these days.

Fearful, ignorant abuse with possible gender insecurity.

Nelson Mandela who the 1993 recipient spent 27 years in prison. I don't want to defend the PLO, but there's no question that 1994 recipient Yasser Arafat has a deep sense o committment and has suffered for it. Wangari Muta Maathai, 2004 recipient ,has been targetted for assasination and arrested numerous times. 2003 recipient Shirin Ebadi has been threatened, his family has been threatened, his daughter has been accused of a capitol offense, he has been accused of defending 'CIA spies'.

Perhaps this is why you think the TM is some sort of compelling alternative. You have no idea there are people who have given up their lives for something they believe in.

Another ignorant debunker resorts to psychic mind-reading to fill in the abuse gaps!

This goes on all the time. You just don't know anything about it.

Let me suggest an idea. Get a computer with an internet connection. It'll allow you to surf the web and find out more about what's really going on.

Why devote your time to composing patronizing rubbish like this? Does it make you feel big?

[JihadJane]

While this might be true for the first fifty years of the Nobel Peace Prize, there were quite a number of protest march types given the award in the second half of the last century.

Tutu? Mandela? King? Aung S S Kyi? Walesa? Corrigan and Williams?
Rabble-rousing marchers one and all.

Seven people out of many millions of marchers. As I said, taking to the streets rarely gets you the Nobel prize and is more likely to get you beaten up and ridiculed. If you're a very rare individual you may get both. You may also get murdered, depending, partly, on the strategic importance of your homeland.

[Foolmewunz]

Seven people out of many millions of marchers. As I said, taking to the streets rarely gets you the Nobel prize and is more likely to get you beaten up and ridiculed. If you're a very rare individual you may get both. You may also get murdered, depending, partly, on the strategic importance of your homeland.


Those are the seven I could recall. I'd be willing to bet that quite a few others (labor/labour organizations, for instance, have won a number) were also marchers.

And besides, what's your point? That the brave internet warrior Bill Smith is right? Meaning Gandhi and Mandela and Tutu and King were wrong to take their stands and risk their lives? Ya see, I don't believe that everyone is lacking in moral courage. I think that when pushed, people rise to the occasion, even at the risk of their own safety and even their lives. I do not put myself in that former category - I've never actually felt that my life was at risk - but if someone said, "We can't go to Bryant Park because Daley's cops are out for scalps and are bound to bust some heads..." ? My response was, "So be it, then. Gotta go."

[JihadJane]

Those are the seven I could recall. I'd be willing to bet that quite a few others (labor/labour organizations, for instance, have won a number) were also marchers.

And besides, what's your point? That the brave internet warrior Bill Smith is right? Meaning Gandhi and Mandela and Tutu and King were wrong to take their stands and risk their lives? Ya see, I don't believe that everyone is lacking in moral courage. I think that when pushed, people rise to the occasion, even at the risk of their own safety and even their lives. I do not put myself in that former category - I've never actually felt that my life was at risk - but if someone said, "We can't go to Bryant Park because Daley's cops are out for scalps and are bound to bust some heads..." ? My response was, "So be it, then. Gotta go."

My point? I thought the introduction of the Nobel Prize into the "discussion" was somewhat ludicrous and irrelevant.

Perhaps it's because I do not have an obsession with "Truthers" and the "TM" or a pressing need to play bizarre and endless character assassination games with my internet buddies! I go to the ScrewLooseChange gossip column for that.

[BigAl]

Seven people out of many millions of marchers. As I said, taking to the streets rarely gets you the Nobel prize and is more likely to get you beaten up and ridiculed. If you're a very rare individual you may get both. You may also get murdered, depending, partly, on the strategic importance of your homeland.

I think the words you are looking for are "inspired leadership", something that real movements need and seems to be lacking in the "Half Truth Movement".

[Foolmewunz]

My point? I thought the introduction of the Nobel Prize into the "discussion" was somewhat ludicrous and irrelevant.

Perhaps it's because I do not have an obsession with "Truthers" and the "TM" or a pressing need to play bizarre and endless character assassination games with my internet buddies! I go to the ScrewLooseChange gossip column for that.

Then why don't you just say that instead of trying to be cute and thereby getting the facts wrong? Quite a number of "protesters" have won the Nobel Peace Prize, and I'd be willing to bet that if you asked one hundred people - the next 100 people you met - to name someone who won the Peace Prize, that aside from favorite sons, you'd get 75% or more responding with one of those famous names I mentioned.

[stateofgrace]

My point? I thought the introduction of the Nobel Prize into the "discussion" was somewhat ludicrous and irrelevant.

Perhaps it's because I do not have an obsession with "Truthers" and the "TM" or a pressing need to play bizarre and endless character assassination games with my internet buddies! I go to the ScrewLooseChange gossip column for that.


Of course you do, but then again it was you that introduced the anti apartheid protests into the "discussion ".If you didn't want these protests discussing then why introduce them ? Was it just some form of ludicrous, irrelevant comparison?

No torture for you, no Nobel peace prize, no world wide support, no state sanctions in support of you brave "911 skeptics" . Oh poor ludicrous, irrelevant "911 skeptics", I feel your pain, the pain of irrelevance.

[beachnut]

Why pay any attention whatsover to it, then? Haven't you got better things to do?

In what way are people who protest about 9/11 not genuine protestors?

Genuine protest, btw, very rarely gets one a Nobel Prize. It is more likely get you spat on, beaten up and/or tortured!

You posted and ask the silly question why?

They are genuine protesters who have moronic ideas about 911. Not protestors!

Great work, they can't earn a Nobel Prize, Pulitzer Prize, and they fail to get big crowds. 3 time losers. The truth of the truth movement, or however you want to label people who lack knowledge on 911; dirt dumb ideas and failed opinions on 911 ensure they will never earn a Nobel Prize, Pulitzer Prize and most likely keep the crowds down.

But you are wrong, a good cause can earn a Nobel Prize and can attract massive crowds and protests. Was this error due to lack of research like a 911 truther makes all the time?

[Scott Sommers]

One single protester protesting against the rising of the sun is still a genuine protester!

Why do you care? I don't.

We're not, after all, discussing sport or the music charts.

Why do you care?

Fearful, ignorant abuse with possible gender insecurity.

Another ignorant debunker resorts to psychic mind-reading to fill in the abuse gaps!

Why devote your time to composing patronizing rubbish like this? Does it make you feel big?

Strangely, only a while back you were appeared to be claiming that major social movements couldn't attract large crowds to their demonstrations...anyway, why do I care? I'm just wondering about your consistancy. I read constantly about the huge and growing interest in 911 Truth. But every time there's a demonstration, almost no one shows up. Bill explained to me what he/she/it thinks is happening, but in the process he/she/it seems to be agreeing with me that no one's interested in 911 Truth.

It does seem that no one cares about 911 Truth, not even the government.

[CHF]

As I said, taking to the streets rarely gets you the Nobel prize and is more likely to get you beaten up and ridiculed. If you're a very rare individual you may get both. You may also get murdered, depending, partly, on the strategic importance of your homeland.

Wow, do you feel sorry enough for yourself?

Gotta say, that was one of the most shameful victim-hood displays I've ever seen, especially given that truthers are not "beaten up" or "murdered."

You're certainly ridiculed, that's for sure, but so what?

Is ridicule really enough to shut down your brave revolution of change? Is that really enough to drain the truthers' willingness to hunt down the real 9/11 perps?

What a world we would have if all revolutions were as wimpy at the TM and could be shut down with a little laughter. Dictators wouldn't bother employing security forces.

[CHF]

I read constantly about the huge and growing interest in 911 Truth. But every time there's a demonstration, almost no one shows up.

Notice that this extends to elections as well.

Ron Paul, Kevin Barrett, the Canadian Action Party...fail, fail, fail.

This leaves us three possibilities: either a) the TM is the laziest movement in human history, b) it just isn't all that big, or c) both.

[Scott Sommers]

As I said, taking to the streets rarely gets you the Nobel prize and is more likely to get you beaten up and ridiculed. If you're a very rare individual you may get both. You may also get murdered, depending, partly, on the strategic importance of your homeland.

But which of these happens to 911 Truthers in Canada or the US? I've watched hundreds of videos of rallies and there was no violence at any of them. In fact, I've only ever seen one where there was a serious police presence. Have you ever heard of a Truther being beaten for his/her/its beliefs? I doubt the police even know about your groups.

As CHF points out, the only danger here is of ridicule.

But back to my original point, is it true that 911 Truth rallies can't generat more than a handful of participants?

[kookbreaker]

Seven people out of many millions of marchers. As I said, taking to the streets rarely gets you the Nobel prize and is more likely to get you beaten up and ridiculed. If you're a very rare individual you may get both. You may also get murdered, depending, partly, on the strategic importance of your homeland.

Oh look outside the window, there's a woman being grabbed
They've dragged her to the bushes and now she's being stabbed
Maybe we should call the cops and try to stop the pain
But Monopoly is so much fun, I'd hate to blow the game
And I'm sure it wouldn't interest anybody
Outside of a small circle of friends.

Riding down the highway, yes, my back is getting stiff
Thirteen cars are piled up, they're hanging on a cliff.
Maybe we should pull them back with our towing chain
But we gotta move and we might get sued and it looks like it's gonna rain
And I'm sure it wouldn't interest anybody
Outside of a small circle of friends.

Smoking marihuana is more fun than drinking beer,
But a friend of ours was captured and they gave him thirty years
Maybe we should raise our voices, ask somebody why
But demonstrations are a drag, besides we're much too high
And I'm sure it wouldn't interest anybody
Outside of a small circle of friends

[Cuddles]

Are there others who question 911, but still don't want to have anything to do with a Truth Movement filled full of the mentally ill? Is it an embarrassment to be associated with the Truth Movement?

What's particularly telling is comments like this:
...and I wasn't talking about the fabled "TM" but 9/11 skepticism in general, world-wide.

The terms "truth movement" and "truther" were invented by the truthers themselves, obviously with the intent to imply that they are seeking (or already have) the truth while those who oppose them are liars. However, since that is obviously not the case the terms have instead come to be terms of ridicule. Even hardcore truthers like JihadJane are now reduced to pretending that there is no such thing as the "truth movement", and implying that it is something made up by skeptics.

So yes, clearly even truthers themselves often do not want to be associated with other truthers. Given that, what's the chance of someone who hasn't already fallen all the way down the rabbit hole wanting to be associated with them?

[Longfellow]

I think it's time to face a harsh reality, 'truthers'.

Your 'movement' is practically non-existent in the real world. You belong to what could well be the first ever virtual political movement: That is to say, you only exist in cyberspace. When people log off the internet you disappear.

It's been over 8 years and you have absolutely nothing to show for it. No revolution. No public hangings. Nothing.

How does that make you feel?

[BigAl]

I think it's time to face a harsh reality, 'truthers'.

Your 'movement' is practically non-existent in the real world. You belong to what could well be the first ever virtual political movement: That is to say, you only exist in cyberspace. When people log off the internet you disappear.

It's been over 8 years and you have absolutely nothing to show for it. No revolution. No public hangings. Nothing.

How does that make you feel?

Where are the "Investigate 9/11" banners at the U.N.? Are there any? It's reportedly a festival of all the protest movements in the world, all trying to get the attention of the press and the world's leaders. It's the perfect audience for the Twoofers.

Video: http://ny1.com/content/top_stories/106253/protestors-rally-against-iranian-president-s-un-visit/Default.aspx

[tsig]

BTDT - wanna compare notes on which cities have the toughest lockups?

Portsmouth, Ohio.

Or the particular jail you find yourself in at the time.

[twinstead]

I think it's time to face a harsh reality, 'truthers'.

Your 'movement' is practically non-existent in the real world. You belong to what could well be the first ever virtual political movement: That is to say, you only exist in cyberspace. When people log off the internet you disappear.

It's been over 8 years and you have absolutely nothing to show for it. No revolution. No public hangings. Nothing.

How does that make you feel?

It's easy for them to deal with it--the same way they deal with everything else. According to them, the movement is stronger than ever and growing every day. The revolution is going to happen any day now. Aaaaaany day now.

[Macgyver1968]

Portsmouth, Ohio.

Or the particular jail you find yourself in at the time.

Highland Park, Texas. It's horrible...you get your own air conditioned cell and they feed you Mcdonald's for dinner.

[Justin39640]

It's easy for them to deal with it--the same way they deal with everything else. According to them, the movement is stronger than ever and growing every day. The revolution is going to happen any day now. Aaaaaany day now.

if i had a dollar for every whacked out email that ended like that over the last 4 years....

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Of course you do, but then again it was you that introduced the anti apartheid protests into the "discussion ". If you didn't want these protests discussing then why introduce them ? Was it just some form of ludicrous, irrelevant comparison?


She introduced it because she thought it was a bombshell that would shut you folks up. Since that obviously backfired, she no longer wants to talk about it.

[stateofgrace]

She introduced it because she thought it was a bombshell that would shut you folks up. Since that obviously backfired, she no longer wants to talk about it.

She as demonstrated perfectly what truthers think when they see the dismal support they actually have.

Typical truther, opps sorry, 911 skeptic who is not associated in anyway with the TM which doesn’t actually exist.

[JihadJane]

Then why don't you just say that instead of trying to be cute and thereby getting the facts wrong? Quite a number of "protesters" have won the Nobel Peace Prize, and I'd be willing to bet that if you asked one hundred people - the next 100 people you met - to name someone who won the Peace Prize, that aside from favorite sons, you'd get 75% or more responding with one of those famous names I mentioned.

Well, I'm not intentionally trying to be cute - maybe it just comes naturally!

When someone mentions the Nobel Peace Prize to me I always think of Henry Kissinger.

What's particularly telling is comments like this:


The terms "truth movement" and "truther" were invented by the truthers themselves, obviously with the intent to imply that they are seeking (or already have) the truth while those who oppose them are liars. However, since that is obviously not the case the terms have instead come to be terms of ridicule. Even hardcore truthers like JihadJane are now reduced to pretending that there is no such thing as the "truth movement", and implying that it is something made up by skeptics.

So yes, clearly even truthers themselves often do not want to be associated with other truthers. Given that, what's the chance of someone who hasn't already fallen all the way down the rabbit hole wanting to be associated with them?

Interesting fantasy.

In what way am I a "hardcore truther", Cuddles, and when I have I ever accepted the label "truther" or identified myself as part of a movement?

She introduced it because she thought it was a bombshell that would shut you folks up. Since that obviously backfired, she no longer wants to talk about it.

Yet another "skeptic's" remote viewing efforts misses the mark completely!

[JihadJane]

Strangely, only a while back you were appeared to be claiming that major social movements couldn't attract large crowds to their demonstrations
It does seem that no one cares about 911 Truth, not even the government.

No, I wasn't claiming that at all.


It does seem that no one cares about 911 Truth, not even the government.

Seems it's only people like yourself. Why do you care?


Wow, do you feel sorry enough for yourself?



I wonder if this is just a reflection of your own egocentricity as I am not feeling sorry for myself at all.

[Scott Sommers]

No, I wasn't claiming that at all.



Seems it's only people like yourself. Why do you care?




I wonder if this is just a reflection of your own egocentricity as I am not feeling sorry for myself at all.

Why does everything that you say seem like it's been answered before? In fact, I started a post asking the same question. Do you want to hear my answer again, or should I just look it up for you and post the link?

And back to my original question. what does it make you think when NYCAN can't get more than a hundred people out?

[JihadJane]

Why does everything that you say seem like it's been answered before? In fact, I started a post asking the same question. Do you want to hear my answer again, or should I just look it up for you and post the link?

And back to my original question. what does it make you think when NYCAN can't get more than a hundred people out?

I ask you the same question because you haven't answered it yet. Why are you so interested in the 911 Truth Movement and related gossip?

To answer your question:

It doesn't make me think anything. As I wrote above, I don't care.

[Scott Sommers]

Since everyone else here does your research for you, here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5115066#post5115066)it is.

[Scott Sommers]

When someone mentions the Nobel Peace Prize to me I always think of Henry Kissinger.


I thought I'd pointed out how wrong this is - sort of like what a high school student or college freshman might think.

Want the link where I said this, too?

[TruthersLie]

Well, I'm not intentionally trying to be cute - maybe it just comes naturally!

When someone mentions the Nobel Peace Prize to me I always think of Henry Kissinger.



Really? I always think of that hero of peace Yassir Arafat.


Interesting fantasy.

In what way am I a "hardcore truther", Cuddles, and when I have I ever accepted the label "truther" or identified myself as part of a movement?


Do you believe that the US government allowed the attacks to happen or that they made the attacks occur and then blamed 19 innocent arabs? If so then you are defintely a truther. You don't have to "identify" yourself. Your stated beliefs do it for you.

[deep]

Even hardcore truthers like JihadJane are now reduced to pretending that there is no such thing as the "truth movement", and implying that it is something made up by skeptics.(emphasis mine)

Most debunkers just use the term to label anyone who disagrees with them on the subject of 9/11. I'm sure you're familiar with the system:

- label group of people.
- highlight, legitimize, and discredit beliefs from the lowest common denominators of the group.
- attribute those beliefs to the entire group.

For example - the recent "vicsims" thread (now in AAH).

I suspect this is what JihadJane was referring to (re: character assassination).

[TruthersLie]

Most debunkers just use the term to label anyone who disagrees with them on the subject of 9/11. .
(emphasis mine)

See here is where you are wrong. (yet again).

I do not label people truthers if they disagree with me over what the facts show, and have factual evidence to support their disagreements.

I disagreed with LashL on the city court of NY's decision about the number of "valid signatures." That does not make her a Truther. (not by a long shot).

I disagree with people about the EXACT nature of the collapse, or the exact nature of the explosions heard AFTER the collapse. That does not make them a truther.

I disagree with numerous people in believing that quite a few people should have been fired/removed from office or even jailed for negligence. That does nto make them truthers.

What defines a "truther" is a person who can look at the entire mountain of evidence and say with a straight face that it was NOT 19 hijackers, who crashed 3 jets into 3 buildings and one into a field who did it. If you cannot see the basic facts and you then create some elaborate fantasy, that makes you a truther.

Again, I love the selective readings and the attempt to paint the "oh woe is me, people are labeling us" card. It is highly amusing.

[Longfellow]

...(snip)

I suspect this is what JihadJane was referring to (re: character assassination).

Character assassination of a 'truther' is nigh impossible as it is unlikely one can even find a 'truther' of good repute.

No redeeming qualities = no character assassination.

[Dave Rogers]

I'm sure you're familiar with the system:

- label group of people.


At that point, your argument breaks down, because the label "truth movement" is self-appointed. Think about it (if you can) for just one single second, and you'll realise that it's insane to label a group whom you oppose, and whose theories you are trying to discredit, the truth movement. Sorry, but you brought that one on yourselves.

Dave

[Hokulele]

(emphasis mine)

Most debunkers just use the term to label anyone who disagrees with them on the subject of 9/11. I'm sure you're familiar with the system:

- label group of people.
- highlight, legitimize, and discredit beliefs from the lowest common denominators of the group.
- attribute those beliefs to the entire group.

For example - the recent "vicsims" thread (now in AAH).

I suspect this is what JihadJane was referring to (re: character assassination).


Bolding mine.

[Cuddles]

In what way am I a "hardcore truther", Cuddles, and when I have I ever accepted the label "truther" or identified myself as part of a movement?

That was exactly my point. Your beliefs clearly show you as a truther, yet you refuse to accept that label. A label made up by the people you agree with, at least in part. Clearly there must be some reason why you, and many others, attempt to avoid being associated with them, and embarrassment at the sheer retardedness of many of the claims seems a reasonable hypothesis.

The really telling point is that you don't just deny that you are part of it, you deny that it exists at all. If you genuinely weren't a truther you could simply clarify your actual thoughts on the matter. However, instead you choose to make nonsensical claims that the truth movement, declared as such by its own members, doesn't exist. If you weren't a truther, there would be no reason to engage in such ridiculous denials.

Most debunkers just use the term to label anyone who disagrees with them on the subject of 9/11.

And you've managed to completely miss the point as well. Truther is a term invented by the truthers. It's not debunkers labelling people, for the most part they label themselves. That people who share their beliefs now try to pretend it is a term made up and applied by skeptics was exactly the point being made. The truth movement has become so ridiculous that it is even embarrassed of itself.

[ImANiceGuy]

This is truly one of the stupidest threads I've seen here.....and I don't hold this forum in very high regard.

Scott (who I pray isn't teaching ESL over in Taiwan), wants to know what "truthers" think when their rallies are scarcely populated. This could be the most useless question ever posed; generating speculative replies as to the size of the "truth movement". If Bill came on and said it made him sad, what would this contribute? Your question demonstrates general ignorance.

Also, the Truther label may have originated within the 9/11 CT community, but JREF skeptics use the term(or derogatory derivatives) as a wide brush to paint any member posting 'questionable' comments.

IMO, it seems Scott started this thread seeking praise and approval from other septic skeptics....it makes him look cool when everyone agrees with him!

[BigAl]

This is truly one of the stupidest threads I've seen here.....and I don't hold this forum in very high regard.

Scott (who I pray isn't teaching ESL over in Taiwan), wants to know what "truthers" think when their rallies are scarcely populated. This could be the most useless question ever posed; generating speculative replies

Many of the replies are not speculation, They are data based on measured web trends and the videos of events where heads can be counted.

[Comsat Angel]

This is truly one of the stupidest threads I've seen here.

Scott (who I pray isn't teaching ESL over in Taiwan), wants to know what "truthers" think when their rallies are scarcely populated. <pointless b******s snipped> If Bill came on and said it made him sad, what would this contribute? Your question demonstrates general ignorance.



And yet you just had to post in this self-same thread. Couldn't help yourself, despite the stupid. The stupid simply had to be answered, eh? No way could you just walk off and leave the stupid alone.

Perhaps Scott wanted to see how Twoofers justify being part of a movement that barely functions. Perhaps he wanted to see explanations for the divorce between Imagination ("80,000 marchers!") and Reality ("93 marchers!"). Perhaps he wanted to see "cognitive dissonance" in action. Perhaps he wanted to see interesting, informative and insult-free answers from Twoofers.

General ignorance? I think it demonstrates an unbiased general curiosity.

As for stupid threads, dude, you mean you missed anything where Ultima1 posted?

[A W Smith]

This is truly one of the stupidest threads I've seen here..!

well it is now that you have responded and posted in it

kthxbye

[Sword_Of_Truth]

In all fairness to the twoofers, they have shown in the past the ability to generate huge crowds at thier demonstrations.

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c345/Kilstryke/mindlesscrowdfollowers.jpg

[alienentity]

What do Truthers think when they watch videos of 911 Truth demonstrations?
<snip>

So all my JREFF friends who believe in this 'stuff', what goes through your head when you see that virtually no one shows up at any of your demonstrations?

JJ's response was a great example of the misrepresentation of evidence. Attempting to equate anti-apartheid protests with 9/11 truth protests is a remarkable exercise in historical revisionism, even if it was superficial and rather meaningless.

Speaking from personal experience, I participated in a long, long protest (many weeks) at Yale University in the mid 1980's to get the U to divest it's investments in the Apartheid regime.
There were many rallies, and even a tent city. In the end, we prevailed, and Yale divested. Similar things happened across the US. Protest was widespread, in mainstream media all over the world, crossing socioeconomic boundaries.
In academia thousands signed petitions, hundreds of professors in Britain alone had endorsed the anti-apartheid movment by the mid 60's.
The British AAM (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/mike-terry-campaigner-who-led-the-antiapartheid-movement-for-two-decades-1059367.html) had a membership of 20,000 in 1989, with 1,300 affiliated organisations.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=271591
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,956586,00.html

The difference was that there was conclusive evidence available, backed up by mainstream, respected scholarship. No such thing exists for 9/11 truth.

And you must remember that the powerful political elites (incl President Ronald Reagan) were backing Apartheid officially - Nelson Mandela was listed by the US as a terrorist (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-04-30-watchlist_N.htm). It took many years of grassroots protests to get political action. As early as 1962 there was a UN resolution against Apartheid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Apartheid_Movement), but no Western nation would endorse it.

To summarize, when truthers claim the movement is exploding, they are equally accurate with all their other claims of explosive squibs, thermite, security power-downs and so forth. All of it is hooey, and that's what prevents the movement from growing - there just aren't enough delusional people out there to support it.

To put it another way; if we were supporting Nelson Mandela back in the day against a violent, racist system, truthers are supporting Osama Bin Laden* today and his network of anti-Western terrorists. Which side are you on?



*Even Dr. Steven Jones has jumped onto that bandwagon, arguing that photos of OBL have been faked, and that he never confessed to being in on the plot. Don't blame OBL, says Jones and his sycophants - blame the US government.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

*Even Dr. Steven Jones has jumped onto that bandwagon, arguing that photos of OBL have been faked, and that he never confessed to being in on the plot. Don't blame OBL, says Jones and his sycophants - blame the US government.

This is what Jones and his ilk call "patriotism".

[JohnG]

Scott (who I pray isn't teaching ESL over in Taiwan), wants to know what "truthers" think when their rallies are scarcely populated.


"Sometimes the road less travelled is less travelled for a reason" - Jerry Seinfeld

[alienentity]

This is truly one of the stupidest threads I've seen here.

This could be the most useless question ever posed;


Hit a raw nerve, did he? Fascinating....the truther's Achilles heel - we're huge, we're growing, we're ever so important, but almost nobody shows up at our rallies. Hmmm,.....ouch? (sounds of deflating claims, shrinking delusions of grandeur, shriveling self-importance follow.... sound of keyboard typing resumes..)

[Sword_Of_Truth]

This is truly one of the stupidest threads I've seen here.....and I don't hold this forum in very high regard.

Scott (who I pray isn't teaching ESL over in Taiwan), wants to know what "truthers" think when their rallies are scarcely populated. This could be the most useless question ever posed; generating speculative replies as to the size of the "truth movement". If Bill came on and said it made him sad, what would this contribute? Your question demonstrates general ignorance.

Also, the Truther label may have originated within the 9/11 CT community, but JREF skeptics use the term(or derogatory derivatives) as a wide brush to paint any member posting 'questionable' comments.

IMO, it seems Scott started this thread seeking praise and approval from other septic skeptics....it makes him look cool when everyone agrees with him!

Sounds like someone needs a nap, a diaper change and his sippy cup.

[ImANiceGuy]

Hit a raw nerve, did he? Fascinating....the truther's Achilles heel - we're huge, we're growing, we're ever so important, but almost nobody shows up at our rallies. Hmmm,.....ouch? (sounds of deflating claims, shrinking delusions of grandeur, shriveling self-importance follow.... sound of keyboard typing resumes..)

Don't be silly.......I'm a nice guy, I don't get upset. You see, the difference between us is that I understand the significance of anonymous internet forum.

The ignorance I claimed is displayed in the op, is. Scott is baiting what he refers to as "truthers" so he can debase them. I called him out on this visible shallowness. The truth of the matter, imo, is that the thread's significance for whichever human calls themselve Scott.In.Taiwan, is to bolster his own ego.(in the Freudian definition)

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Don't be silly.......I'm a nice guy, I don't get upset.


Given your extreme anger at being asked a simple question about the discrepancy between your movements real world numbers and the noise generated in your internet echo chambers and the use of a term you people invented and applied to yourselves, I see no reason to believe that either of these statements are true.

[twinstead]

It's the truthers' own fault we have to resort to reminding them that more people will show up to protest pro NAMBLA than for 9/11 "truth". Sound we have to do it? Of course not; it really is borne more out of frustration more than anything. When sane people try to convince irrational people that their beliefs are...well...irrational, they of course will stick their fingers in their ears and say, "la la la la la la". How else can the point be made?

If this whole "inside job" shtick was all you truther folks make it out to be, every investigative reporter in the universe would be jonesin' for that Pulitzer Prize that is sure to come by blowing this thing wide open. They aren't there. The protesters aren't there. Nobody is there because you don't have anything. it's as simple and as sad as that.

[Scott Sommers]

All the hostility and over such a simple question. Why can't we all just be friends?

If my choice of names to label the Inside Jobers is offensive, please accept a sincere apology. What would you prefer? 911 Conspiracy theorists? Actually, I think that sounds worse, but you let me know.

But I'm still left with an unanswered question. I am repeatedly told there are tens of thousands of names on a petition in NY. I hear Dyan Avery say repeatedly that "The movement's growing everyday." I am told there is a huge number of people in the USA who believe that the President murdered thousands in broad daylight. Then where are they? When ever a Truth Group (and that's their name) calls for people to come out and demand justice, all I see is a handful of people. Even in NY on September 11, the numbers that show up are dwarfed by the a good keg party. Major advocates of 911 are fired from their jobs, one after another. Years ago Van Jones signs a 911 petition and is run out of office. What happens? Not a peep. No protests. No newspspers filled with anger. Even the Truth groups themselves seem relatively quite on this point. Ceratinly not thousands of protesters filling the streets days later in 2 protests held in NY.

Why is it there is almost no public suport for Truth groups?

[twinstead]

Why is it there is almost no public suport for Truth groups?

I think most people realize that not only are they wrong, but they insult the memories of the victims of that day and accuse innocent people of mass murder. That's the holy trinity to become ignored.

[Scott Sommers]

I think most people realize that not only are they wrong, but they insult the memories of the victims of that day and accuse innocent people of mass murder. That's the holy trinity to become ignored.

Of course this is why, but I want to this interpreted through the words of our - and what is that new term - pro-Inside Jober friends. What's their reason for this? Bill Smith was at least honest with his theory on the matter.

1. Apathy
But that didn't seem to wash when compared with other political movements. So let's look for some others.

2. The NWO and it agents threaten all, and only the bravest of patriots dare march for this cause.

3. There really are tens of thousands but the NWO hides them with its holographic technology.

4. There really are millions who support the cause but 911 Truth groups have become so dominated with social misfits and the deinstitutionalized mentally ill that they don't dare.

5. Number 4 is correct, but when people show up, their demonstrations get confused with a jail break and the police get called, instead.

Come on boys, I can keep this up all month, but I'd like to hear your reasons. Why doesn't anyone show up for your demonstrations? Why would free beers get me more people than one of your calls for justice on 911?

[Childlike Empress]

First

Major advocates of 911 are fired from their jobs, one after another. Years ago Van Jones signs a 911 petition and is run out of office. What happens? Not a peep. No protests.


then

2. The NWO and it agents threaten all, and only the bravest of patriots dare march for this cause.


Cut the straw and maybe someone is willing to discuss with you, bigmouth.

[Scott Sommers]

Cut the straw and maybe someone is willing to discuss with you, bigmouth.

"Bigmouth"...oh no. Don't call me that.

Take my challenge or don't. I don't have to rephrase myself.

[triforcharity]

CE, do you have something to add to this thread?? Or are you just a one-post wonder???

[TruthersLie]

In all fairness to the twoofers, they have shown in the past the ability to generate huge crowds at thier demonstrations.

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c345/Kilstryke/mindlesscrowdfollowers.jpg

SOT. I hate to do it...
but goodwins law much?

Now if we were talking about fascists, ok, but we are talking about people with delusions. This should be
http://photos2.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/2/f/2/8/600_9132072.jpeg

That would be 16 people.

So yes I do think that scott-in-taiwan is correct. You can get more people out for a keg party than to protest the government murdering 3,000 citizens in cold blood... that is amazing.

[twinstead]

That gives me an idea; maybe they should server beer at their protests. Just sayin'.

[triforcharity]

Is that picture in Orlando?? It looks earily simmilar to SR 50 in East Orlando.

[Myriad]

That would be 16 people.


And they appear to be protesting at least 5 different things.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[BigAl]

SOT. I hate to do it...
but goodwins law much?

Now if we were talking about fascists, ok, but we are talking about people with delusions. This should be
http://photos2.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/2/f/2/8/600_9132072.jpeg

That would be 16 people.


And only two signs relate to 9/11.

[Scott Sommers]

And only two signs relate to 9/11.

But one of them is soooo big, it takes 2 people to hold it. It's the .45 magnum of demo posters!

[TruthersLie]

Is that picture in Orlando?? It looks earily simmilar to SR 50 in East Orlando.

Hey tri good eyes. According the the webpate it is a truth rally in Orlando.

it is from the webpage of the twoof who is suing glenn beck...

[LashL]

Is that picture in Orlando?? It looks earily simmilar to SR 50 in East Orlando.


Yes, the bald fellow wearing a tie and holding the right side of the "building 7" banner is Greg Hoover. He's the truther who said he was going to sue Glenn Beck (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=145408) for 'defaming' truthers collectively. That photo was, apparently, taken at the "Orlando 911 Truth Rally" in June 2009.

Not surprisingly, Hoover's lawsuit - which he claimed would be filed in federal court in June 2009 - has never materialized.

[BigAl]

But one of them is soooo big, it takes 2 people to hold it. It's the .45 magnum of demo posters!

40oz Colt 45

[ImANiceGuy]

Given your extreme anger at being asked a simple question about the discrepancy between your movements real world numbers and the noise generated in your internet echo chambers and the use of a term you people invented and applied to yourselves, I see no reason to believe that either of these statements are true.

You're completely illiterate right? Or else you have an interesting definition of "extreme anger". haha....

and why am I a Truther, Sword of Twoof? Please do answer me....because this is a perfect demonstration of someone ascribing a label to someone based on their own personal assumptions.

I love how Scott completely ignores me and re-iterates his unanswerable question, only to be provided with more irrelevant conjecture.

(I'm so angry.....argh!)

[Comsat Angel]

Let's see - here is your argument -

"Scott is baiting what he refers to as "truthers" so he can debase them. "

And here is Scott's reply to billsmith, one of the most b*****t crazy posters here on the 9/11 forum:

"I appreciate very much your willingness to answer me directly. Thank you.

Do I understand you correctly? You believe that the Truth Movement is not growing larger every day. "

Reality welcomes you, and hopes you have a nice stay here.

[triforcharity]

Hey tri good eyes. According the the webpate it is a truth rally in Orlando.

it is from the webpage of the twoof who is suing glenn beck...

Ah, that Idiot. Ok, gotcha.

Suprisingly, his lawsuit hasn't materialized. Wow, such a shocker there. He wasn't even licensed to practice law, and had some rather large skeletons in his closet.

Gotcha.

I have driven down SR 50 many times, and that building in the background is right on SR 50, if I am not mistaken.

[Scott Sommers]

See... I knew that if I just waited around long enough someone would make the claim. Have a look at atavisms' post at the top of this page (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=154872&page=12).

911T is 'small?? Try Massive! with thousands of groups worldwide, There are engineers 911 groups, firemen's groups, independents like Hoffman and Ryan and so so many people (see 911blogger), podcasts, blogs, video sites, Try google and you will see how wrong you are. There are 'truthers' on every corner of the planet! bc the evidence leaves you little choice in the matter. Most of them will never get involved in activism or even publicly dissenting the OCT as I do. (that will change with time)

Based on my own informal surveys, most people (who've looked at the evidence carefully) agree with me.. many do not act bc they feel powerless, are too busy etc. I know bc I ask. Despite this, I believe 9/11 Truth will continue to grow over time because the evidence is so damning. I can think of quite a few people (myself incl) who were not doubters or questioners of the official conspiracy theory (OCT) and after really seeing and laying out the facts, and doing a little research on their own, believe otherwise today.


Then where are they when you need people on the streets? You might be lucky to get 20 people to a demo. where are they my Jobber friend?

[JihadJane]

Why are you so interested in the 911 Truth Movement and related gossip?



Since everyone else here does your research for you, here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5115066#post5115066) *it is.


* Here is scott.in.taiwan’s reason for being interested in the 911 Truth Movement and related gossip: Except for the people who don't believe me, you know I only heard about this trash a few months ago. I honestly have to say It's hard to believe that anyone could believe most of crap spouted by the person calling himself Bill Smith and other cowards that hide here.

It frightens me. I know...I keep getting assurred that this is an Internet phenomena and once I log off it disappears. I don't believe this. If Bill and his gang of cowards are so deluded they can talk about this seriously, they would be dangerous people to have on the streets.

I grew up in simple world where parents taught their children to look out for sexual predators. I can understand that now you have to teach your kids that Nazis, pedophiles, and cult religions are dangerous. To have to teach my kids that there are deeply sick people who pretend to be historians and scholars is not an experience that life prepared me for.

:D And they call twoofers paranoid!




Most debunkers just use the term to label anyone who disagrees with them on the subject of 9/11. I'm sure you're familiar with the system:

- label group of people.
- highlight, legitimize, and discredit beliefs from the lowest common denominators of the group.
- attribute those beliefs to the entire group.

For example - the recent "vicsims" thread (now in AAH).

I suspect this is what JihadJane was referring to (re: character assassination).

Yes.

Q.E.D.:

Character assassination of a 'truther' is nigh impossible as it is unlikely one can even find a 'truther' of good repute.

No redeeming qualities = no character assassination.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


That was exactly my point. Your beliefs clearly show you as a truther, yet you refuse to accept that label. A label made up by the people you agree with, at least in part. Clearly there must be some reason why you, and many others, attempt to avoid being associated with them, and embarrassment at the sheer retardedness of many of the claims seems a reasonable hypothesis.

Once again you are mistaking your own fantasies for reality.

JJ's response was a great example of the misrepresentation of evidence. Attempting to equate anti-apartheid protests with 9/11 truth protests is a remarkable exercise in historical revisionism, even if it was superficial and rather meaningless.



Wrong. You are misrepresenting my response.

I was not equating anti-apartheid protests with 9/11 protests, as explained, above, below:

Are you seriously comparing the TM to the world wide anti apartheid protests?

Seriously?



No, I was just pointing out the error in the OP's sampling system.

...and I wasn't talking about the fabled "TM" but 9/11 skepticism in general, world-wide.

I was was pointing out the facile nature of the OP.

I find your question “Which side are you on?” to be equally facile.

[stateofgrace]

I was was pointing out the facile nature of the OP.

I find your question “Which side are you on?” to be equally facile.

Sorry? What are you talking about? Where did I ask you this question? The answer to the question, by the way, is blatantly obvious to anybody that reads your posts. You are ashamed to be called a truther, you are ashamed to be associated with such an organisation, hence the reason you deny its very existence. You are ashamed of the “side “you try to defend and it shames to have your nose rubbed in it when the dismal support this laughable organisation actually commands is pointed out to you.

YOU raised the topic of the anti apartheid protests, YOU brought the subject into this topic, not me. YOU were the one who tried, unsuccessfully to compare the anti apartheid protests to the TM protests, not me. YOU tried to spin into this topic that a picture of few anti apartheid protesters was compatible to a few TM protesters. When the huge difference between the two protests was pointed out to you, you suddenly decided it was irrelevant and silly.

I couldn't care less what you find facile. It does amuses me though to see you back peddling and trying desperately to find a way out of the corner you have painted yourself into. Please carry on, amuse me some more.

[dafydd]

That gives me an idea; maybe they should server beer at their protests. Just sayin'.

antipsychotics would be a better idea.

[Scott Sommers]

* Here is scott.in.taiwan’s reason for being interested in the 911 Truth Movement and related gossip:

:D And they call twoofers paranoid!




Yes.

Q.E.D.:



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




Once again you are mistaking your own fantasies for reality.



Wrong. You are misrepresenting my response.

I was not equating anti-apartheid protests with 9/11 protests, as explained, above, below:






I was was pointing out the facile nature of the OP.

I find your question “Which side are you on?” to be equally facile.

The reality is that no one shows up at your demonstrations. That's a fact. The biggest documented 911 Truth demonstation in the past few years fielded a few dozen people. That's a fact. So tell me my JREF friend, why is this? Are there secret demonstations with vast numbers I don't know about? Tell me more. I want to know all about the mainstreaming of 911 Truth.

Don't give me such a hard time. I'm just asking questions.

[JihadJane]

The reality is that no one shows up at your demonstrations. That's a fact. The biggest documented 911 Truth demonstation in the past few years fielded a few dozen people. That's a fact. So tell me my JREF friend, why is this? Are there secret demonstations with vast numbers I don't know about? Tell me more. I want to know all about the mainstreaming of 911 Truth.

Don't give me such a hard time. I'm just asking questions.

They're not my demonstrations. Why are you asking me?

Are you trying to keep me off the streets where I might be dangerous?

[twinstead]

Why are you asking me?

Are you trying to keep me off the streets where I might be dangerous?

Actually, he's wondering why *you and the other truthers aren't on the streets. You know, that whole government is guilty of mass murder thing.




*I know you're not really a truther per se, but you defend them because so many of them share your politics and world view. I's actually quite sad.

[JihadJane]

Sorry? What are you talking about? Where did I ask you this question? The answer to the question, by the way, is blatantly obvious to anybody that reads your posts. You are ashamed to be called a truther, you are ashamed to be associated with such an organisation, hence the reason you deny its very existence. You are ashamed of the “side “you try to defend and it shames to have your nose rubbed in it when the dismal support this laughable organisation actually commands is pointed out to you.

There has been a misunderstanding.

I was quoting your post as part of an exchange in which I'd previously explained why I'd posted the picture of Trafalgar Square. Alienentity asked the question.

I have no shame about being associated with 911 skepticism or the truther organisation and I'm not playing football. That's just your fantasy, but you're not alone. A remarkable number of "skeptical" posters here confuse their imaginings with reality. What can this mean?

Nor have I denied the existence of your "truther organisation"

YOU raised the topic of the anti apartheid protests, YOU brought the subject into this topic, not me. YOU were the one who tried, unsuccessfully to compare the anti apartheid protests to the TM protests, not me. YOU tried to spin into this topic that a picture of few anti apartheid protesters was compatible to a few TM protesters. When the huge difference between the two protests was pointed out to you, you suddenly decided it was irrelevant and silly.

An ignorant person shown the picture of the demo outside the S.A. embassy alongside a the picture of the 9/11 demo would no have clue as to which movement had greater support. That was my point. If you want to tell me I was actually making another point, go ahead and enjoy your fantasy.

I couldn't care less what you find facile. It does amuses me though to see you back peddling and trying desperately to find a way out of the corner you have painted yourself into. Please carry on, amuse me some more.

Enjoy your corner and back-peddling fantasies along with your one about shame.

As you now know, hopefully, my “facile” comment wasn't directed at your comment.

[cyclonic]

They're not my demonstrations. Why are you asking me?

Are you trying to keep me off the streets where I might be dangerous?

"dangerous?"

Yes its true that some people can laugh at truthers so much that they have heart attacks, so yes truthers can be dangerous.

A good example was the flock of twoofers yelling "PULL IT LARRY PULL IT!"

LMAO!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeARSQoRwmQ

[stateofgrace]

I have no shame about being associated with 911 skepticism or the truther organisation and I'm not playing football. That's just your fantasy, but you're not alone. A remarkable number of "skeptical" posters here confuse their imaginings with reality. What can this mean?
Nor have I denied the existence of your "truther organisation"

"What can that mean?" Why don't you tell us?

See, I am sure earlier on in this thread when I mentioned the Truth Movement you called it a fable, Maybe I am mistaken and maybe you could clarify exactly what you are, a truther, a 911 skeptic, a supporter of the truth movement , a 911 skeptic who thinks the Truth movement is a fable or whatever. It all gets kind of confusing when you continually change your mind as to what you mean and what you support.

So go ahead and tell us precisely what you support, what you wish to be called and why whatever it is you do support is unable to muster anything resembling a half decent street demonstration.


An ignorant person shown the picture of the demo outside the S.A. embassy alongside a the picture of the 9/11 demo would no have clue as to which movement had greater support. That was my point. If you want to tell me I was actually making another point, go ahead and enjoy your fantasy.


Correct, an ignorant person would not be able to see the distinction between two almost identical pictures until that person stopped being ignorant and actually found out what the difference between the two pictures was. Once this was done this person would no longer be living in ignorance but would be educated enough to know the difference between the anti apartheid protests and the TM protests. That educated person would then ask “What sort of ignorant person could possibly imagine that nobody knows the difference between the massive support the anti apartheid movement had and the TM? “ Or maybe they could chuckle to themselves as you labour harder and harder to actually find a reason as to why you posted the picture and keep lunging from insignificant to almost non existent reasons. If it wasn't so sad it would be hilarious, that you honestly think people are so ignorant they don't know the differance betwen the two protests and you thought you could prove this by posting a photograph. Keep going JJ; you are a laugh a minute, please continue.

[Scott Sommers]

911T is 'small?? Try Massive! with thousands of groups worldwide, There are engineers 911 groups, firemen's groups, independents like Hoffman and Ryan and so so many people (see 911blogger), podcasts, blogs, video sites, Try google and you will see how wrong you are. There are 'truthers' on every corner of the planet! bc the evidence leaves you little choice in the matter. Most of them will never get involved in activism or even publicly dissenting the OCT as I do. (that will change with time)

Based on my own informal surveys, most people (who've looked at the evidence carefully) agree with me.. many do not act bc they feel powerless, are too busy etc. I know bc I ask. Despite this, I believe 9/11 Truth will continue to grow over time because the evidence is so damning. I can think of quite a few people (myself incl) who were not doubters or questioners of the official conspiracy theory (OCT) and after really seeing and laying out the facts, and doing a little research on their own, believe otherwise today.

More research will be conducted,more people will come out, and when you are told what to think by the talking heads on your TV screens then you will nod your heads in accord, and realize you were so wrong on this issue all that time. Not one 'debunker' has explained so much as the bloody squibs, for goodness sakes!

So here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5165090#post5165090) it is. I'm sure if I look far enough, I can find even Jane or Bill making the same claims.

But in all of this, is there an answer? Jane is mad. Jane is unhappy. But does Jane have an answer? Obviously you need my help.

Look...all I'm trying to do is help is. I'm trying to point out that your marketing campaign isn't working. Clearly, 911T is ohhhhh so popular among the masses. Petitions, polls, all kinds of things. It's mainstream knowledge and only a dozen or so crazies over on the JREF don't believe. But they've been forgotten by the Truth Movement that has other more important issues to deal with now. Right?

But clearly there's a problem. The mainstreamed TM holds huge numbers of rallies every year - and no one shows up. They look like a pack of Jehovah's Witnesses handing out the Watch Tower and not the great social movement that it is.

As obvious as this is to me, when I talk about it with you Jobbers, you start peeing your pants. All I want to do is solve the problem. What's up? Where are the thousands in the polls and petitions you keep telling me about? Why can't they get motivated enough by the crime of the century to show up for one of your rallies? Why oh why? Why will so many more show for a demo against the Gulf War, but not for you guys? Don't they know it's the same thing?
http://www.ilkahartmann.com/members/jbrave/phototext.nsf/images/F0ADFE376AC5F10488256E0F001BAD72/$FILE/Native_Americans_at_demonstration_against_gulf_war .jpg

Come on Jane, why can't we all be friends?

[Orphia Nay]

An ignorant person shown the picture of the demo outside the S.A. embassy alongside a the picture of the 9/11 demo would no have clue as to which movement had greater support. That was my point. If you want to tell me I was actually making another point, go ahead and enjoy your fantasy.

But why make that point in this thread?

Others have shown photos of huge crowds protesting apartheid. Where is just ONE photo of huge crowds supporting 9/11 Truth?

If you're not saying that 9/11 Truth has huge protests SOMEWHERE, you are just making an irrelevant point so as to troll.

[dc1971]

I'd show up for punch and pie.

Mmmmmmmmmm, punch aaaaand piiiiiieeeee.... GURGLGLGLGLGLGLGLLLLLEE!!!

[Scott Sommers]

An ignorant person shown the picture of the demo outside the S.A. embassy alongside a the picture of the 9/11 demo would no have clue as to which movement had greater support. That was my point. If you want to tell me I was actually making another point, go ahead and enjoy your fantasy.

I suppose your point is that you can't know anything by looking at it. Are you saying there's no such thing as evidence? Since I've had the pleasure to meet you, that's what I've suspected your point is.

I've watched at least 100 videos of 911 truth demonstrations. If there were videos of big crowds, I'd have seen them. But maybe I'm wrong. Straighten me out on this. Point me to the truth. Why can't 911 Truth groups get anyone out? Is it a marketing problem? Or is it just that there is no protest about 911?

You could admit it here that actually no one believes this stuff except a small cadre of people who had THE TRUTH revealed to them. You could tell us that it doesn't matter if there are only 10 people who KNOW this because when Morpheus unplugs the Matrix, we're going to know who the real heros are. You could say this and it wouldn't shock anyone here that this is your real opinion. So just tell me, why can't Truth groups get anyone out to their demonstrations?

[Scott Sommers]

It's the truthers' own fault we have to resort to reminding them that more people will show up to protest pro NAMBLA than for 9/11 "truth".

It appears that you're not just poking fun at 911.
http://droitfondamental.eu/12-NTW-NAMBLA-pedopride.png

Anybody with a video or picture of a 911 Truth rally that's bigger than this, let me know.

[alienentity]

There has been a misunderstanding.

No kidding. There is still a giant misunderstanding.

Apparently you truthers can't fathom the basic fact that rallies are very poorly attended, as opposed to other grassroots movements (you brought up anti-apartheid protests) where there are thousands or millions of people protesting.



An ignorant person shown the picture of the demo outside the S.A. embassy alongside a the picture of the 9/11 demo would no have clue as to which movement had greater support.


No sense of irony, JJ. ;)

[JihadJane]

"dangerous?"

Yes its true that some people can laugh at truthers so much that they have heart attacks, so yes truthers can be dangerous.

A good example was the flock of twoofers yelling "PULL IT LARRY PULL IT!"

LMAO!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeARSQoRwmQ

Mock not! Where is your compassion? It is scott.in.taiwan, our terrified OP poster, who thinks "truthers"are me, as dangerous as "Nazis , pedophiles, and cult religions": (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5115066#post5115066)

Originally Posted by scott.in.taiwan

It frightens me. I know...I keep getting assurred that this is an Internet phenomena and once I log off it disappears. I don't believe this. If Bill and his gang of cowards are so deluded they can talk about this seriously, they would be dangerous people to have on the streets.

I grew up in simple world where parents taught their children to look out for sexual predators. I can understand that now you have to teach your kids that Nazis, pedophiles, and cult religions are dangerous. To have to teach my kids that there are deeply sick people who pretend to be historians and scholars is not an experience that life prepared me for.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



"What can that mean?" Why don't you tell us?

See, I am sure earlier on in this thread when I mentioned the Truth Movement you called it a fable, Maybe I am mistaken and maybe you could clarify exactly what you are, a truther, a 911 skeptic, a supporter of the truth movement , a 911 skeptic who thinks the Truth movement is a fable or whatever. It all gets kind of confusing when you continually change your mind as to what you mean and what you support.

So go ahead and tell us precisely what you support, what you wish to be called and why whatever it is you do support is unable to muster anything resembling a half decent street demonstration.

You're jumping the gun, stateofgrace. As a first step to clearing up your confusion why don't you show me where I called the "Truth Movement" a fable. Then we can start having a conversation based on reality.

Cyclonic, above, has helpfully provided an example of a half decent street demonstration by some 911 skeptics, certainly bigger than those that frightened scott.in.taiwan so much:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeARSQoRwmQ



Correct, an ignorant person would not be able to see the distinction between two almost identical pictures until that person stopped being ignorant and actually found out what the difference between the two pictures was. Once this was done this person would no longer be living in ignorance but would be educated enough to know the difference between the anti apartheid protests and the TM protests. That educated person would then ask “What sort of ignorant person could possibly imagine that nobody knows the difference between the massive support the anti apartheid movement had and the TM? “ Or maybe they could chuckle to themselves as you labour harder and harder to actually find a reason as to why you posted the picture and keep lunging from insignificant to almost non existent reasons. [/FONT] If it wasn't so sad it would be hilarious, that you honestly think people are so ignorant they don't know the differance betwen the two protests and you thought you could prove this by posting a photograph. Keep going JJ; you are a laugh a minute, please continue.


You are, once again, getting a little ahead of yourself. My point was simply that the pictures scott.in.taiwan posted as part of his campaign to protect his children from truther danger, are not representative of the size of the 911 Truth Movement any more than the photo I posted of the anti-apartheid demonstration is representative of the size of the Anti-Apartheid movement.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



So here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5165090#post5165090) it is. I'm sure if I look far enough, I can find even Jane or Bill making the same claims.

But in all of this, is there an answer? Jane is mad. Jane is unhappy. But does Jane have an answer

...

Come on Jane, why can't we all be friends?

OK, why don't you start the process of reality-grounded reconciliation by showing me where I've made the "same claims" that you imagine I have made?

Or are you too wedded to playing with fantastical stereotypes to bother?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


But why make that point in this thread?

Others have shown photos of huge crowds protesting apartheid. Where is just ONE photo of huge crowds supporting 9/11 Truth?

If you're not saying that 9/11 Truth has huge protests SOMEWHERE, you are just making an irrelevant point so as to troll.

I'm saying that the OP is meaningless as a comment on the size of the 911 Truth Movement, just as the photo I posted is meaningless as a comment of the size of the anti-apartheid movement. I haven't made any claims about there being huge 9/11 Truth demos anywhere. My humble point is simple, apparently too simple for tunnel-vision game-players to grasp!


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


No kidding. There is still a giant misunderstanding.

Did you understand the particular misunderstanding I was referring to?

Apparently you truthers can't fathom the basic fact that rallies are very poorly attended, as opposed to other grassroots movements (you brought up anti-apartheid protests) where there are thousands or millions of people protesting.

I’m interested to know how you formed the belief that I haven't fathomed the "basic fact"?

Did you dream it?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



I suppose your point is that you can't know anything by looking at it. Are you saying there's no such thing as evidence? Since I've had the pleasure to meet you, that's what I've suspected your point is.

I've watched at least 100 videos of 911 truth demonstrations. If there were videos of big crowds, I'd have seen them. But maybe I'm wrong. Straighten me out on this. Point me to the truth. Why can't 911 Truth groups get anyone out? Is it a marketing problem? Or is it just that there is no protest about 911?

You could admit it here that actually no one believes this stuff except a small cadre of people who had THE TRUTH revealed to them. You could tell us that it doesn't matter if there are only 10 people who KNOW this because when Morpheus unplugs the Matrix, we're going to know who the real heros are. You could say this and it wouldn't shock anyone here that this is your real opinion. So just tell me, why can't Truth groups get anyone out to their demonstrations?

It appears that real people's real opinions are an optional extra in your fantasy world.

Only in the mind of an unhinged evangelical preacher could your pictures and your demonstration survey be accepted as evidence that "no one believes this stuff except a small cadre of people who had THE TRUTH revealed to them."

[stateofgrace]

You're jumping the gun, stateofgrace. As a first step to clearing up your confusion why don't you show me where I called the "Truth Movement" a fable. Then we can start having a conversation based on reality.



Sure

No, I was just pointing out the error in the OP's sampling system.

...and I wasn't talking about the fabled "TM" but 9/11 skepticism in general, world-wide.

Sorry I thought you mentioned it here on page two, maybe I was mistaken. So which reality do you wish to have a discussion about the alternate one you live in or real world reality?



You are, once again, getting a little ahead of yourself. My point was simply that the pictures scott.in.taiwan posted as part of his campaign to protect his children from truther danger, are not representative of the size of the 911 Truth Movement any more than the photo I posted of the anti-apartheid demonstration is representative of the size of the Anti-Apartheid movement.



Actually no I am not getting ahead of myself, you are. You have posted an image and specifically stated that ignorant people would not know the difference between it and other images of TM protests. It has been pointed out to you countless times the huge difference between what is represented in both images. Each time it is pointed out to you, you simply retreat into this alternate reality you live in and keep claiming you have made some sort of valid point. In real world reality you have done no such thing, you made a silly mistake in posting such an image and it now appears you are unable to accept that you are capable of making mistakes. In real world situations when people make mistakes, they tend to “Gee, yep you guys are right I made a mistake, thanks for pointing it out". If, as you now claim the original pictures that Scott as posted are not representative of TM protests then post something that is representative of the TM protests. We all know and accept that the photograph you posted of the anti-apartheid demonstration does not represent this movement; it has been pointed out to you countless times. So point out to us why the pictures of the TM protests do not represent the support for the TM. Show us all what support the TM as that is not represented in the photographs of their protests, where is it? Why is that the anti-apartheid protesters could command world wide support on top of their demonstrations and this appears not to be the case for the TM?

[Scott Sommers]

Why does there seem to be so much misunderstanding about my question? I know that I have a very direct and abrasive way of just asking questions, but let's try and put all the rhetoric aside for now. One more time...

Jane and others tell me there are many people who accept some version of the 911 story they tell us. Now keep in mind that many of these people do not accept that the government did anything at all, but let's play with this one and see where it goes. OK, there are lots of people: professionals, engineers, pilots, etc, who accpt some version of Jane's 911 story. There are tens of thousands of New Yorkers who accept it. OK, I understand this.

What is it that keeps them away from 911 Truth groups and their rallies? The demonstration you link to is hardly a challenge to this. Given the numbers you cite from surveys, petitions, and membership in 911 Truth groups, this is hardly an impressive turn out. There couldn't be more than 150 people there (See calculation below). Even a count of 500 would hardly mean anything. You've got to admit that if 80,000 people in NY signed your petition for a new 911 investigation, then We Are Change NYC doesn't seem to able to be able to mobolize more than a handful of them.

So why is that?

Honestly, is it because you're right and many people do distrust what you call the 'official story', but that 911 Truth groups and their demonstrations have no appeal to them? I can think of a thousand reasons why that would be. You find my reasons offensive. But really, tell me why do all those other people stay home. Why has not a single 911 Truth demonstration been able to mobolize this vast number of people?

MY CALCULATION OF THE CROWD IN cyclonic's CLIP: It is very hard to count the number of people in the crowd. The camera cuts and switches angles several times. It pans across the same front of the building several times, then at 0:44, the camera is switched so that the person is now filming the exact same people only looking away from the building instead of toward it. The longest continuous shot of the crowd occurs from 0:20 to around 0:33. After that, it's not at all clear who is being filmed or if they've seen shot before. Anyway, here are my counts of people from the clip. Starting at 0:20, I count 22 people. As the camera shifts to 0:26, I count another 34 people. To 0:28 another 32. To 0:30 is 18 people. To 0:32another 32 people. At 0:34 another 25 people. After that, it's not clear who is being shot.

If we count the 25 people after the major shift at 0:33, this totals 145. Let's allow for counting error, and give a number around 150 or 160. This number is consistant with my count of 110 at the New York 911 demo this year. I do not know where these people come from. This could include people from New Jersey, Boston, or even Atlanta. Regardless, 150 or so is hardly an impressive number

[alienentity]

Why does there seem to be so much misunderstanding about my question?

Because truthers are masters of misunderstanding. To support a delusion, one must reflexively misinterpret external challenges, no matter how trivial; it becomes a habitual, unconscious process.

[Scott Sommers]

I just thought I'd post this again. I seem to get a better response when I'm abrasive and rude. What lesson is there in that? Anyway, I think this post is as politely as I can put the position. I think it's clearly stated. If my other posts deserved a response, then certainly this one does, as well. Come on guys, don't act like chickens.


Why does there seem to be so much misunderstanding about my question? I know that I have a very direct and abrasive way of just asking questions, but let's try and put all the rhetoric aside for now. One more time...

Jane and others tell me there are many people who accept some version of the 911 story they tell us. Now keep in mind that many of these people do not accept that the government did anything at all, but let's play with this one and see where it goes. OK, there are lots of people: professionals, engineers, pilots, etc, who accpt some version of Jane's 911 story. There are tens of thousands of New Yorkers who accept it. OK, I understand this.

What is it that keeps them away from 911 Truth groups and their rallies? The demonstration you link to is hardly a challenge to this. Given the numbers you cite from surveys, petitions, and membership in 911 Truth groups, this is hardly an impressive turn out. There couldn't be more than 150 people there (See calculation below). Even a count of 500 would hardly mean anything. You've got to admit that if 80,000 people in NY signed your petition for a new 911 investigation, then We Are Change NYC doesn't seem to able to be able to mobolize more than a handful of them.

So why is that?

Honestly, is it because you're right and many people do distrust what you call the 'official story', but that 911 Truth groups and their demonstrations have no appeal to them? I can think of a thousand reasons why that would be. You find my reasons offensive. But really, tell me why do all those other people stay home. Why has not a single 911 Truth demonstration been able to mobolize this vast number of people?

MY CALCULATION OF THE CROWD IN cyclonic's CLIP: It is very hard to count the number of people in the crowd. The camera cuts and switches angles several times. It pans across the same front of the building several times, then at 0:44, the camera is switched so that the person is now filming the exact same people only looking away from the building instead of toward it. The longest continuous shot of the crowd occurs from 0:20 to around 0:33. After that, it's not at all clear who is being filmed or if they've seen shot before. Anyway, here are my counts of people from the clip. Starting at 0:20, I count 22 people. As the camera shifts to 0:26, I count another 34 people. To 0:28 another 32. To 0:30 is 18 people. To 0:32 another 32 people. At 0:34 another 25 people. After that, it's not clear who is being shot.

If we count the 25 people after the major shift at 0:33, this totals 145. Let's allow for counting error, and give a number around 150 or 160. This number is consistant with my count of 110 at the New York 911 demo this year. I do not know where these people come from. This could include people from New Jersey, Boston, or even Atlanta. Regardless, 150 or so is hardly an impressive number

[UNLoVedRebel]

You're not going to get much out of Jane. She openly admits she cannot watch a burning building fall to the ground and come to a conclusion what caused said building to fall to the ground.

To some people, ignorance really is bliss.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

You're completely illiterate right? Or else you have an interesting definition of "extreme anger". haha....

What was it you said again?

This is truly one of the stupidest threads I've seen here.....and I don't hold this forum in very high regard.


I concede the point, you're not angry... you're P-I-S-S-E-D.

I'm sorry, but you don't get to come in here with a holier than thou attitude, insult our intelligence, tell us our conversations are stupid, tell us you hold us in contempt and then expect to brush it all away by saying "but I'm a nice guy".

You should be careful with a temper like that... it could get you into trouble someday.

[JihadJane]

Jane and others tell me there are many people who accept some version of the 911 story they tell us.

What story have I told you?

Now keep in mind that many of these people do not accept that the government did anything at all, but let's play with this one and see where it goes. OK, there are lots of people: professionals, engineers, pilots, etc, who accpt some version of Jane's 911 story.

What is my story?

There are tens of thousands of New Yorkers who accept it. OK, I understand this.

...

What is it that keeps them away from 911 Truth groups and their rallies?

...

But really, tell me why do all those other people stay home. Why has not a single 911 Truth demonstration been able to mobolize this vast number of people?



See my reply to stateofgrace, below.


When and why were you last moved to protest on the streets?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~


Sorry I thought you mentioned it here on page two, maybe I was mistaken. So which reality do you wish to have a discussion about the alternate one you live in or real world reality?


I was not calling the 911 Truth Movement a fable. I was referring to the fabled one that exists in scott.in.taiwan's fearful imagination, full of dangerous clones, all handily packaged into a box like a football team so that he can throw his/her trite, propagandistic mud at it.




Actually no I am not getting ahead of myself, you are. You have posted an image and specifically stated that ignorant people would not know the difference between it and other images of TM protests. It has been pointed out to you countless times the huge difference between what is represented in both images. Each time it is pointed out to you, you simply retreat into this alternate reality you live in and keep claiming you have made some sort of valid point. In real world reality you have done no such thing, you made a silly mistake in posting such an image and it now appears you are unable to accept that you are capable of making mistakes. In real world situations when people make mistakes, they tend to “Gee, yep you guys are right I made a mistake, thanks for pointing it out". If, as you now claim the original pictures that Scott as posted are not representative of TM protests then post something that is representative of the TM protests. We all know and accept that the photograph you posted of the anti-apartheid demonstration does not represent this movement; it has been pointed out to you countless times.

Oxymoronically!

So point out to us why the pictures of the TM protests do not represent the support for the TM. Show us all what support the TM as that is not represented in the photographs of their protests, where is it? Why is that the anti-apartheid protesters could command world wide support on top of their demonstrations and this appears not to be the case for the TM?



Why should the size of street demonstrations be a reliable measure of a movement's size? For example, I would include myself among those who are skeptical of the officially propagated 9/11 surprise attack narrative and have never attended a 9/11 street protest.

[funk de fino]

Why should the size of street demonstrations be a reliable measure of a movement's size? For example, I would include myself among those who are skeptical of the officially propagated 9/11 surprise attack narrative and have never attended a 9/11 street protest.

This is the bullseye post. Do nothing, don't care. The worst political movement in history regardless the size it is.

How utterly pathetic. It would be even worse if you were from the US and not just a US hater.

[Scott Sommers]

This is certainly very interesting for me. I make strong claims about the nature of the Truth Movement. I write long detailed posts analyzing videos to demonstrate my point. I repeatedly state there is no evidence that the Truth Movement is more than a few people. Jane and Bill complain endlessly about this and then when I politely clarify my point so as to elicit a comment, what's the response?

Come off it, my word choice is irrelevant. You know that I do not agree with you on the evidence of 911. This post, and the point on which I was accussed of being combative, is about the size of the Truth Movement. You claimed there were videos that showed large 911 Truth demonstrations. I will not call this a lie, but I think your use of this video in this fashion shows your inabiity to handle evidence and that you will say anything about anything. What's worse is it seems you did not think I would actually count the number of people in attendance, or perhaps even did not think counting would reveal anything important about how large the crowd really was.

So now I have your attention. Why is it that 911 Truth groups seem completely unable to mobolize large numbers of people to their rallies, even though we have some reason to believe many people accept there are problems with the so-called 'official story'. I can make up all sorts of answers, but you told me you find my explanations offensive. As such, I would rather you suggest to me the cause of this failure.

[funk de fino]

What story have I told you?

I know your 7/7 one and its links to your 911 views. That didnt end too well did it? Claims proved wrong and you had to flee while resorting to semantic wibbling and claims of fakery.

[funk de fino]

According to Bill S, 911 truth is huge outside the US and we should extrapolate numbers.

Bill has yet to show us a number of photos of huge rallies or protest marches in the UK to back up this claim. It should be a piece of cake.

I would accept even a few fairly largish ones.

[Scott Sommers]

According to Bill S, 911 truth is huge outside the US and we should extrapolate numbers.

Bill has yet to show us a number of photos of huge rallies or protest marches in the UK to back up this claim. It should be a piece of cake.

I would accept even a few fairly largish ones.

Nah...Here are some pictures of 911 Truth in Britain.
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2032816&id=1044091908&l=0cdd653e40

[TruthersLie]

<snip>
Why should the size of street demonstrations be a reliable measure of a movement's size? For example, I would include myself among those who are skeptical of the officially propagated 9/11 surprise attack narrative and have never attended a 9/11 street protest.

And this is EXACTLY the problem.

Do you believe that the US government murdered 3,000 people? yes or no?
Do you believe that some form/part of the US government killed its own citizens to gain monetary benefit? Yes or no?
Do you believe the US government murdered 3,000 people in cold blood to start two wars of aggression and take away american rights?

If any of those answers are yes, then you must be a rather pathetic individual to not care enough to demonstrate and show that it is horrendous.

When two kids are kidnapped and murdered you can get hundreds or thousands of individuals out in the streets protesting gun laws, or child molester laws...

but your movement can't get more than 50 people together for demonstrations of the biggest case of MASS murder? Really?

That really does sum up the current state of the world doesn't it? In Iran they had half a million protesters because of a disputed election. An ELECTION. But the twoof movement who believes that the US government murdered its own citizens (a MUCH BIGGER ISSUE) can't gather more than a hundred. The Tea Party movement in the US got up to 100K people in washington DC to protest how the government is spending our money... but a MUCH BIGGER ISSUE such as MASS MURDER and no one shows up...

Wowsers... the level of apathy is astounding...

[stateofgrace]

I was not calling the 911 Truth Movement a fable. I was referring to the fabled one that exists in scott.in.taiwan's fearful imagination, full of dangerous clones, all handily packaged into a box like a football team so that he can throw his/her trite, propagandistic mud at it.

Oxymoronically!, I stole your big word JJ, as it sums you up perfectly.


Why should the size of street demonstrations be a reliable measure of a movement's size? For example, I would include myself among those who are skeptical of the officially propagated 9/11 surprise attack narrative and have never attended a 9/11 street protest.

Indeed. Ok lets take a quick look at something you raised, the anti apartheid protests. Just one instance of public protest, just one JJ.

In 1987, 250,000 African mine-workers went on strike, further undermining the economy and the legitimacy of the apartheid state.
Read more: http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/articles/pages/5958/Anti-Apartheid-Movement.html#ixzz0T3v202Ke


Did you get that JJ? A quarter of a million people in Africa went on strike. Is this a measure of the movement’s size?

Tell me why a quarter of a million strikers are not an indication of a movement’s size. Tell me why these people don't deserve the attention they got. And more to the point tell me why a handful of truthers with placards, which doesn't even include you, should get the same attention.

[Scott Sommers]

This is the thing that bothers me. JJ and BS are right. I do hold the Truther movement in distain and think poorly of its members. I do think they imagine themselves to be modern-day figures more heroic than the real heros of 911. I suppose I am being insulting. I'm describing their world as lonely and pathetic and asking them to prove otherwise. It must be insulting.

But the reality is that people do mount huge protests for things they believe in. Iranians do, Taiwanese do, South Africans do, and believe it or not, American do, too. They just don't do it for 911 Truth groups.

OK, I can understand you believe you're on this neglected but heroic mission. I gave that up in grade school, but then I don't know how old you fellows are. I know there are all kinds of people who profess to believe the government is preparing to or already is murdering vast numbers. Hell, there are people who profess to believe the NWO kills people through weather control. Now if that were me, I'd be off in Montana collecting as many machine guns as I could. And there people doing this. But it's none of you guys.

So I'm to believe there gazillions of you guys. Only a handful march in the streets. None of you do anything serious. No 911 Truth group advocates violence, even though they put on the angry young man face. But for that matter, the government that murders thousands in broad daylight hasn't seemed to be very rough about dealing with 911 Truth groups, so maybe that's an accurate assessment of the danger.

You see guys, 911 Truth just seems dumb. You can talk all you want nano-thermite this and faked phone calls that but it's all conspiracy theory gobbly-gook. Sure, maybe you don't care what I say, but I don't believe it. You come back all the time to tell me what a bully I'm being. But I promise, if you can show me a recent 911 Truth rally anywhere in the world, that clearly has more than 500 people, I'll apologize and stop teasing you like the school kid with an ugly lunch box.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Why should the size of street demonstrations be a reliable measure of a movement's size? For example, I would include myself among those who are skeptical of the officially propagated 9/11 surprise attack narrative and have never attended a 9/11 street protest.


Because "movement" implies some kind of action. You're not part of a movement if you're just sitting on your ass.

[Jontg]

SOT. I hate to do it...
but goodwins law much?
No, Godwin's Law implies a frivolous comparison is being made.
Claiming that, say, Obama is Hitler because he's a gifted speaker counts. Claiming that the PATRIOT Act is basically the Fire Decree Mk. II does not, as it's a perfectly legitimate critique of the sneaky crap in the bill--and comparing the Truthers to the early Fascists is also an apt analogy, because they're following the same pattern of exploiting gullible young people by fomenting anti-government conspiracy theories. In this case, thankfully, the end goal is only to make a profit.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

No, Godwin's Law implies a frivolous comparison is being made.
Claiming that, say, Obama is Hitler because he's a gifted speaker counts. Claiming that the PATRIOT Act is basically the Fire Decree Mk. II does not, as it's a perfectly legitimate critique of the sneaky crap in the bill--and comparing the Truthers to the early Fascists is also an apt analogy, because they're following the same pattern of exploiting gullible young people by fomenting anti-government conspiracy theories. In this case, thankfully, the end goal is only to make a profit.

Not to mention the raging anti-semitism in the twoof movement and that the movement was started by nazi-sympathizers.

[deep]

(emphasis mine)

Most debunkers just use the term to label anyone who disagrees with them on the subject of 9/11. I'm sure you're familiar with the system:

- label group of people.
- highlight, legitimize, and discredit beliefs from the lowest common denominators of the group.
- attribute those beliefs to the entire group.

(.. snip ..)




Bolding mine.


Fair enough; I should have gone into a bit more detail.

By "label", I mean the first step in cultivating a stereotype. For example, the term "truther" was obviously coined elsewhere (and I never meant to imply that it wasn't); however, it's evolved into a catch-all to describe anyone who is skeptical of the (perceived) scientific consensus regarding the events of 9/11/2001.

So, Richard Gage is a "truther" .. and so is PoonSniper911 from the comment section of YouTube - despite very dissimilar beliefs.

That's what I meant by "labeling". From my experience in this forum, it gets used a lot - but maybe that's my own perception playing tricks on me; I've never counted.

[Hokulele]

Fair enough; I should have gone into a bit more detail.

By "label", I mean the first step in cultivating a stereotype. For example, the term "truther" was obviously coined elsewhere (and I never meant to imply that it wasn't); however, it's evolved into a catch-all to describe anyone who is skeptical of the (perceived) scientific consensus regarding the events of 9/11/2001.

So, Richard Gage is a "truther" .. and so is PoonSniper911 from the comment section of YouTube - despite very dissimilar beliefs.

That's what I meant by "labeling". From my experience in this forum, it gets used a lot - but maybe that's my own perception playing tricks on me; I've never counted.


My point was that your use of the label "debunker" is as much pernicious stereotyping as "truther" (two terms I personally try to avoid). Even the people generally classified as debunkers on this one forum display as much, if not more, diversity in terms of background, expertise, and political leanings as those who support various CTs.

I am guessing that your use of the term was unintentional irony, rather than anything malicious, but it did make the rest of your post seem fairly hypocritical.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

So, Richard Gage is a "truther" .. and so is PoonSniper911 from the comment section of YouTube - despite very dissimilar beliefs.

That's what I meant by "labeling". From my experience in this forum, it gets used a lot - but maybe that's my own perception playing tricks on me; I've never counted.


That's almost like indignantly pointing out that Brits use "bloody wanker" a lot. There's also a reason you don't hear us using the word "shill" as a derogatory label for our opponents. It's kind of a "cultural" thing.

However, since "truther" was originally a self-applied label, perhaps you should encourage those under the umbrella of The 9/11 Truth Movement to invent new labels for themselves that encompass their specific beliefs.

...much like religion has done in the past.

[Mr.D]

...much like religion has done in the past.

So here's your chance, deep. Metaphorically nail a document to a church door and once and for all separate out the
skeptic[s] of the (perceived) scientific consensus regarding the events of 9/11/2001.
from the truly kooky. That those in the so-called "truth movement" who are fairly sane, intelligent, polite and open to argument seem to not openly distance themselves from the so-called "no-planers" and the obviously delusional only hurts them.

[Brainache]

...
So, Richard Gage is a "truther" .. and so is PoonSniper911 from the comment section of YouTube - despite very dissimilar beliefs.
...

Just how dissimilar are these beliefs?

How did Gage come to have these beliefs?

How did the apocryphal Poonsniper come to have his beliefs?

Are they both claiming that 9/11 was an inside job by elements of the US Government?

Are they both accusing people of mass murder without the slightest bit of evidence?

Are they both assuming ignorance on the part of their audience in order to further their own agenda?

I would argue that Mr Gage and Poonsniper have a lot in common. Even if they vary as to some tiny specifics of their particular "theories" their methods and motivations appear identical.

[UNLoVedRebel]

however, it's evolved into a catch-all to describe anyone who is skeptical of the (perceived) scientific consensus regarding the events of 9/11/2001.
Let me put to rest your skepticism of the "(perceived) scientific consensus regarding the events of 9/11/2001."


.................................................. .................................................. .....
Modeling pre-evacuation delay by occupants in World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2 on September 11, 2001
Kuligowski, E.D., Mileti, D.S. 2008 Fire Safety Journal

World Trade Center building disaster: Stimulus for innovations
Kodur, V.K.R. 2008 Indian Concrete Journal 82 (1), pp. 23-31

A collective undergraduate class project reconstructing the September 11, 2001 world trade center fire
Marshall, A., Quintiere, J. 2007 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings

"A new era": The limits of engineering expertise in a post-9/11 world
Pfatteicher, S.K.A. 2007 International Symposium on Technology and Society, Proceedings, art. no. 4362228

Progressive collapse of the World Trade Center: Simple analysis
Seffen, K.A. 2008 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 134 (2), pp. 125-132

Scale modeling of the 96th floor of world trade center tower 1
Wang, M., Chang, P., Quintiere, J., Marshall, A. 2007 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 21 (6), pp. 414-421

Failure of welded floor truss connections from the exterior wall during collapse of the world trade center towers
Banovic, S.W., Siewert, T.A. 2007 Welding Journal (Miami, Fla) 86 (9), pp. 263-s-272-s

The collapse of the world trade center towers: A metallurgist's view
Gayle, F.W. 2007 MRS Bulletin 32 (9), pp. 710-716

Building code changes reflect world trade center investigation
Hansen, B. 2007 Civil Engineering 77 (9), pp. 22+24-25

The structural steel of the World Trade Center towers
Gayle, F.W., Banovic, S.W., Foecke, T., Fields, R.J., Luecke, W.E., McColskey, J.D., McCown, C., Siewert, T.A. 2006 Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention 6 (5), pp. 5-8

Progressive collapse of structures: Annotated bibliography and comparison of codes and standards
Mohamed, O.A. 2006 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 20 (4), art. no. 001604QCF, pp. 418-425

A simple model of the World Trade Center fireball dynamics
Baum, H.R., Rehm, R.G., Quintiere, J.G. 2005 Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 30 II, pp. 2247-2254

Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center
Karim, M.R., Hoo Fatt, M.S. 2005 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 131 (10), pp. 1066-1072

High-fidelity simulation of large-scale structures
Hoffmann, C., Sameh, A., Grama, A. 2005 Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3515 (II), pp. 664-671

Collapses of the world trade center towers
[No author name available] 2005 Indian Concrete Journal 79 (8), pp. 11-16

Industry updates: Fireproofing, staircases cited in World Trade Center report
[No author name available] 2005 Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention 5 (4), pp. 34

September 11 and fracture mechanics - A retrospective
Cherepanov, G.P. 2005 International Journal of Fracture 132 (2), pp. L25-L26

Structural responses of World Trade Center under aircraft attacks
Omika, Y., Fukuzawa, E., Koshika, N., Morikawa, H., Fukuda, R. 2005 Journal of Structural Engineering 131 (1), pp. 6-15

Impact of the 2001 World Trade Center attack on critical interdependent infrastructures
Mendonça, D., Lee II, E.E., Wallace, W.A. 2004 Conference Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 5, pp. 4053-4058

Use of high-efficiency energy absorbing device to arrest progressive collapse of tall building
Zhou, Q., Yu, T.X. 2004 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 130 (10), pp. 1177-1187

Progressive analysis procedure for progressive collapse
Marjanishvili, S.M. 2004 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 18 (2), pp. 79-85

Lessons learned on improving resistance of buildings to terrorist attacks
Corley, W.G. 2004 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 18 (2), pp. 68-78

Anatomy of a disaster: A structural investigation of the World Trade Center collapses
Abboud, N., Levy, M., Tennant, D., Mould, J., Levine, H., King, S., Ekwueme, C., (...), Hart, G. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 360-370

World Trade Center disaster: Damage/debris assessment
Thater, G.G., Panariello, G.F., Cuoco, D.A. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 383-392

How did the WTC towers collapse: A new theory
Usmani, A.S., Chung, Y.C., Torero, J.L. 2003 Fire Safety Journal 38 (6), pp. 501-533

Microstructural analysis of the steels from Buildings 7, & 1 or 2 from the World Trade Center
Biederman, R.R., Sullivan, E.M., Sisson Jr., R.D., Vander Voort, G.F. 2003 Microscopy and Microanalysis 9 (SUPPL. 2), pp. 550-551

Brannigan, F.L.
"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.

Analysis of the thermal exposure in the impact areas of the World Trade Center terrorist attacks
Beyler, C., White, D., Peatross, M., Trellis, J., Li, S., Luers, A., Hopkins, D. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 371-382

Clifton, Charles G.
Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers
HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.

"Construction and Collapse Factors"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.

Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y.
"Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" (pdf)
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.

Corbett, G.P.
"Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.

"Dissecting the Collapses"
Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.

Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C.
"Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation"
JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor.
World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations
(also available on-line)

Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A.
"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center"
The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.

"Collapse Lessons"
Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103

Marechaux, T.G.
"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering"
JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.

Monahan, B.
"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations"
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.

Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D.
"Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?"
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800.

National Instititue of Stamdards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs
“Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center”
Statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002.

Pinsker, Lisa, M.
"Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site"
Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001).
The print copy has 3-D images.

Public Broadcasting Station (PBS)
Why the Towers Fell: A Companion Website to the Television Documentary.
NOVA (Science Programming On Air and Online)

Post, N.M.
"No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report"
ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14.

Post, N.M.
"Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing"
ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.

The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering
World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects
A resource site.

"WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives"
ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12.
.................................................. .................................................. ....

Glad I could help.

[TruthersLie]

Fair enough; I should have gone into a bit more detail.

By "label", I mean the first step in cultivating a stereotype. For example, the term "truther" was obviously coined elsewhere (and I never meant to imply that it wasn't); however, it's evolved into a catch-all to describe anyone who is skeptical of the (perceived) scientific consensus regarding the events of 9/11/2001. emphasis mine.

NO it doesn't. As I have explained to you in the past, there is a difference between a truther and a skeptic.

The difference is in how you approach the ideas and facts of 9/11. If you approach it skeptically and then examine the details. When examining the details you then find and look at the events critically.

A truther on the other hand comes to 9/11 and immediately finds LIES and misinformation. Instead of checking the FACTS, they repeat them and dodge around them.

How long did wtc7 take to collapse? If you say anything less than 16 seconds or do not include the east mechanical penthouse you are LYING. That makes you a twoof.

Missing 2.3 trillion? If you think someone "stole" 2.3 trillion and do not check out that it is an accounting issue, then you are LYING. That makes you a twoof.

If you point to securacom/stratasec and say A Bush was on the board of directors, inside job. That is a bit of disinformation, and by implying they helped demolish the towers that is a LIE by implcation. That makes you a twoof.

If you believe there is NO confession from UBL, then you have NEVER done any research. That makes you a twoof.

If you believe that there are 10 minute jet intercepts from the US military, then you are a twoof.

If you believe in mythical nanothermite was used without NO proof of its properties, then you are a twoof.

If you find CT claims and then spew them WITHOUT checking the sources, that makes you a twoof.

Do you get it? If you do no RESEARCH to find out the facts and then take truther claims and spred them, then you are a twoof.

Got it or will I have to reexplain it? (reading for comprehension is your friend)

So, Richard Gage is a "truther" .. and so is PoonSniper911 from the comment section of YouTube - despite very dissimilar beliefs.

Has and does richard gage use the 6.5 second collapse for wtc7? Yes. nanothermite? yes. Missing 2.3 trillion? Yes. Stratasec involvement? Yes. 10 minute jet intercepts? Yes.

That makes him a twoof.


That's what I meant by "labeling". From my experience in this forum, it gets used a lot - but maybe that's my own perception playing tricks on me; I've never counted.

Reading comprehension and reading for understanding are good things. Do people who spew false information, misinformation and outright lies get labeled as twoofs? Yes. Do they deserve it? Yes.

[Scott Sommers]

Just how dissimilar are these beliefs?

How did Gage come to have these beliefs?

How did the apocryphal Poonsniper come to have his beliefs?

Are they both claiming that 9/11 was an inside job by elements of the US Government?

Are they both accusing people of mass murder without the slightest bit of evidence?

Are they both assuming ignorance on the part of their audience in order to further their own agenda?

I would argue that Mr Gage and Poonsniper have a lot in common. Even if they vary as to some tiny specifics of their particular "theories" their methods and motivations appear identical.

I think this is a fair point. As I have said, I know people who believe the strangest things. I have had people say to me, for example, that there were so many undercover police after him at one time, some of them were dressed up as babies with their parents. I also know people who say the New York WTC was blown up by the US government. Neither of these people have any evidence. Although the former did explain to me he was on a coke binge (this was before crack and meth). The other one...well...you can take it from here.

What's more, my coke friend came down from his trip and realized he'd better stop doing drugs. The other one keeps telling me he's part of a huge social movement that's about to sweep the nation. He claims he knows facts that will put US presidents in jail. And the amazing things is that it was done with secret weapons and chemicals that no one's ever heard of.

Sure they're crazy for different reasons and that might matter to a medical doctor. I'm not sure how much it matters for what kind of label an observer puts on them.

[Scott Sommers]

I have recently learned that one of my Facebook attended the New York 911 Truth protest this year. This person is a member of Pittsburg We are Change. It appears that of the 150 or so people I counted in attendance at the event were drawn from the entire East Coast. I don't know about you, but if that's all they can draw from half the population of the USA, they better be growing everday because they're almost dead now.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I have recently learned that one of my Facebook attended the New York 911 Truth protest this year. This person is a member of Pittsburg We are Change.


Pittsburgh. ;)

And, dammit... there's a WAC so close to me? I thought Luke being in the city during G20 made me feel dirty, but now that I know they have a "permanent" presence in the city... *sigh*.

[Orphia Nay]

Pittsburgh. ;)

And, dammit... there's a WAC so close to me? I thought Luke being in the city during G20 made me feel dirty, but now that I know they have a "permanent" presence in the city... *sigh*.

No mention of a Pittsburgh chapter at the main WAC site (http://www.wearechange.org/index.html).

But I found this:

http://www.meetup.com/wearechangepgh/

"102 members". The most attendees they've had for their listed meetups is 13, for a movie about eugenics.

Their meetup to support Luke Rudkowski (http://www.meetup.com/wearechangepgh/calendar/11504692/) had 0 attendees. :D

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

http://www.teamteabag.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/0330chewbacca.jpg

A Wookie named Chewbacca. But to a Truther he might as well be the legendary Bigfoot.

[CHF]

I have recently learned that one of my Facebook attended the New York 911 Truth protest this year. This person is a member of Pittsburg We are Change. It appears that of the 150 or so people I counted in attendance at the event were drawn from the entire East Coast. I don't know about you, but if that's all they can draw from half the population of the USA, they better be growing everday because they're almost dead now.

The Toronto 9/11 protest this year was a similar idea as it included truthers from across Ontario.

Attendance: 25

The 2008 9/11 protest on Parliament Hill in Ottawa was probably the biggest truther rally ever in Canada. It was advertised to truthers for at least 8-9 months and included people from across the country from as far away as BC.

Attendance: 60

[Scott Sommers]

The even more unusual part of this is the way these guys act. They claim to really believe that government agents massacred thousands in broad daylight and continue to walk the streets. Yet it's easy to find who these guys are. I know the home and mobile phone numbers for many of them. This information is freely available on the Internet. Many join the Internet platform Meetup which they set up for their Truth groups or We Are Change and post their real names, as well as other information.

Since many of them are still high school students and otherwise very young, I can understand not knowing the full implications of what they think they know. But if you believed the US was murdering citizens by the thousands, and had taken part in many public demonstrations to this effect, would you acting as though you weren't at all afraid?

It's an insult to people around the world who do struggle against tyranny. You can be sure, that the demonstrators in Iran who were sending videos of demonstrations to CNN weren't posting their names and phone numbers on the Internet.

[Brainache]

The even more unusual part of this is the way these guys act. They claim to really believe that government agents massacred thousands in broad daylight and continue to walk the streets. Yet it's easy to find who these guys are. I know the home and mobile phone numbers for many of them. This information is freely available on the Internet. Many join the Internet platform Meetup which they set up for their Truth groups or We Are Change and post their real names, as well as other information.

Since many of them are still high school students and otherwise very young, I can understand not knowing the full implications of what they think they know. But if you believed the US was murdering citizens by the thousands, and had taken part in many public demonstrations to this effect, would you acting as though you weren't at all afraid?

It's an insult to people around the world who do struggle against tyranny. You can be sure, that the demonstrators in Iran who were sending videos of demonstrations to CNN weren't posting their names and phone numbers on the Internet.

Exactly. It makes me want to make them live in North Korea for a while. Or Saudi Arabia maybe or any one of the many other brutally repressive countries around the world... Let them try to call the government mass murderers there and see how far they get....

[Scott Sommers]

I've seen pictures from 911 Truth demonstrations where there are high school kids standing next to policemen as if they're trying to say, "Look how far I pushed him." Last time I saw pictures like that was from China just before the army went into Tiananmen Square. Then there's that Luke Rradkowski character, barely out of high school as he is, getting arrested and acting like it's some big deal. Did he disappear? Was he tortured? did the police threaten his family?

If any of our JREF Truth buddies wonder why I use a less than respectful tone in addressing them, they can think about this; I live in a country where people died so that there could be freedom today. I know people who had relatives disappear during martial law. The police who made these people disappear are still alive and walking around the streets - they own businesses and newspapers and talk openly about how what they did was national service.

The idea that folks like JJ and BS are somehow these amazing guys, like some latter day George Washington, is just repulsive. If George Bush had the power to do what they say he had done, they'd have disappeared long ago. And while many of these active We Are Change cretins are still high schools students, they disgust me just as much as if they were neo-Nazi skinheads. This kind of silliness is not vindicated either by youth or by ignorance.